Cases - 1963 term

Escobedo v. Illinois

Wed, 29 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Chicago Police Department

3510 South Michigan Avenue Chicago IL 60653

Chicago, IL 60653

United States

41° 49' 50.934" N, 87° 37' 24.5064" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

615

Petitioner

Escobedo

Respondent

Illinois

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 478 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, April 29, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1964

Advocates

Barry L. Kroll (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

James R. Thompson (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Bernard Weisberg (Argued the cause for the American Civil Liberties Union, as amicus curiae, urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken to a police station for questioning. Over several hours, the police refused his repeated requests to see his lawyer. Escobedo's lawyer sought unsuccessfully to consult with his client. Escobedo subsequently confessed to murder.

Question

Was Escobedo denied the right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Escobedo, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

Yes. Justice Goldberg, in his majority opinion, spoke for the first time of "an absolute right to remain silent." Escobedo had not been adequately informed of his consitutitonal right to remain silent rather than to be forced to incriminate himself. The case has lost authority as precedent as the arguments in police interrogation and confession cases have shifted from the Sixth Amendment to the Fifth Amendment, emphasizing whether the appropriate warnings have been given and given correctly, and whether the right to remain silent has been waived.

Jackson v. Denno

Mon, 09 Dec 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Jackson

Respondent

Denno

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 368 (1964)

Argued

December 9-10, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Jackson, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther

Thu, 20 Feb 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

109

Petitioner

Wilbur-Ellis Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kuther

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 422 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, February 20, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Wilbur-Ellis Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo

Tue, 12 Nov 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Lomenzo

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

WMCA, Inc.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 633 (1964)

Argued

November 12-13, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1964

Advocates

Archibald Cox (By special leave of Court, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging reversal)

Leonard B. Sand (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Irving Galt (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

The WMCA, acting on behalf of several New York City registered voters, challenged the constitutionality of Article III, Sections 2-5 of the New York State constitution alleging that its apportionment formula resulted in unfair weighting of both state legislature houses by favoring lesser populated rural areas over densely populated urban centers. On appeal from a dismissal of their complaint by a three-judge district court, the Supreme Court granted the WMCA certiorari.

Question

Did the apportionment formula contained in Article III, Sections 2-5, of the New York State constitution violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for WMCA, Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. In a 7-to-3 decision, the Court began by noting that this case was property before it since no other political relief was available to the WMCA. The Court then held that New York's apportionment formula violated the Equal Protection Clause since it did not apportion the state's senate and assembly substantially on a population basis. Consequently, New York's legislative apportionment scheme significantly undervalued the weight of urban area voters as compared with their rural and less densely populated counterparts. This practice constituted a form of geographical discrimination that violated notions of equal protection.

Liner v. Jafco, Inc.

Thu, 21 Nov 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Liner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jafco, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 301 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, November 21, 1963

Decided

Monday, January 6, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Liner, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

United States v. First Nat. Bank

Wed, 04 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

First Nat. Bank

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 665 (1964)

Argued

March 4-5, 1964

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Humble Pipe Line Co. v. Waggonner

Wed, 04 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

329

Petitioner

Humble Pipe Line Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Waggonner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 354

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 369 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, March 4, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 23, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Humble Pipe Line Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 17: Governance of the District of Columbia and Lands Purchased from the States

None

Marks v. Esperdy

Thu, 02 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

253

Petitioner

Marks

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Esperdy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 214 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, April 2, 1964

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Esperdy, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Jackson v. United States

Wed, 04 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

361

Petitioner

Jackson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 503 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, March 4, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 23, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Garrison v. Louisiana

Wed, 22 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Louisiana

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Garrison

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 64 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, April 22, 1964

Reargued:

Monday, October 19, 1964

Decided

Monday, November 23, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Garrison, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Baggett v. Bullitt

Tue, 24 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

220

Appellee

Bullitt

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Baggett

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 360 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, March 24, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Baggett, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Maryland Committee v. Tawes

Wed, 13 Nov 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Tawes

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Maryland Committee

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 656 (1964)

Argued

November 13-14, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1964

Advocates

Archibald Cox ()

Robert S. Bourbon ()

Theodore I. Botter ()

Alfred L. Scanlan ()

Facts of the Case

Under its 1867 Constitution, the State of Maryland's Senate has 29 seats, one for each of 23 counties and six for the City of Baltimore's legislative districts. The State's five most populous political subdivisions with over three-fourths of the 1960 population are represented by only slightly over one-third of the Senate's membership. In the House of Delegates, after temporary legislation in 1962, there existed a maximum population-variance ratio of almost 6-to-1. A group of residents, taxpayers, and voters brought suit, alleging that the legislative malapportionment violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ultimately, the circuit court held that as to certain counties there was invidious discrimination in the apportionment of the House and that the senatorial apportionment was constitutional. The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question

Does Maryland's apportionment scheme violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by mandating one senator per county and legislative district of Baltimore, regardless of population variances?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Maryland Committee, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. In an 8-1 opinion deliver by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court held that neither house of the Maryland Legislature is apportioned sufficiently on a population basis to be constitutionally sustainable, based on the Court's ruling in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). Finding that the validity of the apportionment of both houses of the Maryland legislature were before it, the Court found that neither house could be sustained under the Equal Protection Clause because of the gross disparities from population-based representation in the apportionment of Senate seats. "Maryland's plan is plainly insufficient under the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause as spelled out in our opinion in Reynolds," wrote Chief Justice Warren. Justice John M. Harlan dissented.

United States v. Healy

Mon, 06 Jan 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Healy

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 75 (1964)

Argued

Monday, January 6, 1964

Decided

Monday, February 17, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Supreme Court Rules

None

Ungar v. Sarafite

Mon, 24 Feb 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

167

Petitioner

Ungar

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sarafite

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 575 (1964)

Argued

Monday, February 24, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 30, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Sarafite, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Meyer v. United States

Thu, 24 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Meyer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 233 (1963)

Argued

Thursday, October 24, 1963

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Meyer, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Platt v. Minnesota Mining Co.

Thu, 09 Jan 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

113

Petitioner

Platt

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Minnesota Mining Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 240 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, January 9, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Platt, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Tilton v. Missouri P. R. Co.

Tue, 07 Jan 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Tilton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Missouri P. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 169 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, January 7, 1964

Decided

Monday, February 17, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Tilton, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham

Thu, 27 Feb 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

168

Petitioner

Shuttlesworth

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Birmingham

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 339 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, February 27, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Shuttlesworth, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

J. I. Case Co. v. Borak

Wed, 22 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

402

Petitioner

J. I. Case Co.

Respondent

Borak

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 426 (1964)

Argued

April 22-23, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Borak, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Durfee v. Duke

Thu, 24 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Durfee

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Duke

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 106 (1963)

Argued

Thursday, October 24, 1963

Decided

Monday, December 2, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Durfee, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: res judicata

None

Aguilar v. Texas

Wed, 25 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

548

Petitioner

Aguilar

Respondent

Texas

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 108 (1964)

Argued

March 25-26, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Aguilar, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

F. P. C. v. Southern Cal. Edison Co.

Tue, 14 Jan 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

F. P. C.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Southern Cal. Edison Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 73

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 205 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, January 14, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 2, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for F. P. C., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Power

None

Yiatchos v. Yiatchos

Tue, 07 Jan 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Yiatchos

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yiatchos

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 306 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, January 7, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Yiatchos, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Packinghouse Workers v. Needham

Thu, 20 Feb 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

102

Petitioner

Packinghouse Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Needham

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 247 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, February 20, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Packinghouse Workers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Humphrey v. Moore

Wed, 16 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Humphrey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Moore

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 18

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 335 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, October 16, 1963

Decided

Monday, January 6, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Humphrey, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Hardy v. United States

Thu, 21 Nov 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

112

Petitioner

Hardy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 277 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, November 21, 1963

Decided

Monday, January 6, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Hardy, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Greene v. United States

Thu, 21 Nov 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Greene

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 149 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, November 21, 1963

Decided

Monday, February 17, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Greene, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Steelworkers v. Labor Board

Wed, 19 Feb 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Steelworkers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Labor Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 492 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, February 19, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 23, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Steelworkers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co.

Thu, 16 Jan 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

108

Petitioner

Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stiffel Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 225 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, January 16, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Sears, Roebuck & Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Aldrich v. Aldrich

Thu, 24 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Aldrich

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aldrich

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 249 (1963)

Argued

Thursday, October 24, 1963

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Aldrich, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

U.S. v. Wiesenfeld Warehouse Co.

Thu, 16 Jan 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Wiesenfeld Warehouse Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

U.S.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 86 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, January 16, 1964

Decided

Monday, February 17, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for U.S., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic, and related statutes

None

Costello v. Immigration Service

Thu, 12 Dec 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Costello

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Immigration Service

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 120 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, December 12, 1963

Decided

Monday, February 17, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Costello, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Clay v. Sun Ins. Office, Ltd.

Tue, 28 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

470

Petitioner

Clay

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sun Ins. Office, Ltd.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 179 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, April 28, 1964

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Clay, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause

None

England v. Medical Examiners

Tue, 15 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Medical Examiners

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

England

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 411 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, October 15, 1963

Decided

Monday, January 13, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for England, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Robinson v. Florida

Tue, 15 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Florida

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Robinson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 153 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, October 15, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Robinson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Labor Board v. Fruit Packers

Tue, 18 Feb 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Labor Board

Respondent

Fruit Packers

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 58 (1964)

Argued

February 18-19, 1964

Decided

Monday, April 20, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Labor Board, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

United States v. Continental Can Co.

Tue, 28 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

367

Appellee

Continental Can Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 441 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, April 28, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Missouri P. R. Co. v. Elmore & Stahl

Tue, 03 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

292

Petitioner

Missouri P. R. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Elmore & Stahl

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 134 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, March 3, 1964

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Elmore & Stahl, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

Carey v. Westinghouse Corp.

Wed, 11 Dec 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Carey

Respondent

Westinghouse Corp.

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 261 (1964)

Argued

December 11-12, 1963

Decided

Monday, January 6, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Carey, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Parsons v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co.

Wed, 23 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Parsons

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chesapeake & O. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 71 (1963)

Argued

Wednesday, October 23, 1963

Decided

Tuesday, November 12, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Parsons, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1404

None

Boire v. Greyhound Corp.

Mon, 17 Feb 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Boire

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Greyhound Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 473 (1964)

Argued

Monday, February 17, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 23, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Boire, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

S. E. C. v. Capital Gains Bureau

Mon, 21 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

S. E. C.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Capital Gains Bureau

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 180 (1963)

Argued

Monday, October 21, 1963

Decided

Monday, December 9, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for S. E. C., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 80

None

United States v. Merz

Mon, 13 Jan 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Merz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

2,872.88 Acres of Land et al. v. United States, No. 79

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 192 (1964)

Argued

January 13-14, 1964

Decided

Monday, February 24, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino

Tue, 22 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Banco Nacional De Cuba

Respondent

Sabbatino

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 398 (1964)

Argued

October 22-23, 1963

Decided

Monday, March 23, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Banco Nacional De Cuba, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. Welden

Thu, 27 Feb 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

235

Appellee

Welden

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 95 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, February 27, 1964

Decided

Monday, April 20, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 32

None

Bouie v. City Of Columbia

Mon, 14 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Bouie

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

City Of Columbia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 347 (1964)

Argued

Monday, October 14, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Bouie, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia Bar

Mon, 13 Jan 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Railroad Trainmen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Virginia Bar

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 1 (1964)

Argued

Monday, January 13, 1964

Decided

Monday, April 20, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Railroad Trainmen, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

None

Dennis v. Denver & Rio Grande R. Co.

Tue, 19 Nov 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Dennis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Denver & Rio Grande R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 208 (1963)

Argued

Tuesday, November 19, 1963

Decided

Monday, December 9, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Dennis, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Employers' Liability

None

United States v. Tateo

Mon, 20 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

328

Appellee

Tateo

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 463 (1964)

Argued

Monday, April 20, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

NAACP v. Alabama

Tue, 24 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

169

Petitioner

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alabama

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 288 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, March 24, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for NAACP, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

None

Willis Shaw Exp. v. United States

Thu, 23 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

201

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Willis Shaw Exp.

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 159 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, April 23, 1964, Monday, April 27, 1964

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Willis Shaw Exp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 49 U.S.C. 303

None

Davis v. Mann

Thu, 14 Nov 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Mann

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Davis

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 678 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, November 14, 1963, Monday, November 18, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1964

Advocates

Edmund D. Campbell (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Archibald Cox (By special leave of Court, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance)

R. D. McIlwaine, III (Argued the cause for the appellants)

David J. Mays (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Henry E. Howell, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

Acting on behalf of residents, taxpayers, and qualified voters in Arlington and Fairfax County, Virginia, Harrison Mann challenged Virginia's 1962 amended statutory apportionment scheme as unrepresentative. Harrison called for a redistribution of legislative representation among the counties and independent cities of the state "substantially in proportion to their respective populations." When Levin Davis appealed an adverse three-judge district court ruling on behalf of Virginia's Secretary and State Board of Elections, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question

Did Virginia's apportionment scheme violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mann, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court noted that under the Fourteenth Amendment all bicameral state legislatures must substantially apportion both seats of their houses on a population basis. In Virginia's case, neither of its legislative houses was apportioned on a population basis. Virginia's claim that the underrepresented counties were composed primarily of military personnel and their families, who often only resided in the state for relatively short periods of time, did not constitute a defense to its actions. Instead, this amounted to discrimination against a class of individuals merely because of the nature of their employment.

Shenandoah Broadcasting v. Ascap.

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:13:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

323

Petitioner

Shenandoah Broadcasting

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ascap.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 39 (1963)

Decided

Monday, October 21, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Shenandoah Broadcasting, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 29

None

Berman v. United States

Thu, 26 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

245

Petitioner

Berman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 530 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, March 26, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Anderson v. Martin

Wed, 20 Nov 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Martin

Respondent

Anderson

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 399 (1964)

Argued

November 20-21, 1963

Decided

Monday, January 13, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Anderson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

United States v. Barnett

Mon, 21 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

107

Petitioner

Barnett

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 681 (1964)

Argued

October 21-22, 1963

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 402

None

Southern R. Co. v. North Carolina

Tue, 14 Jan 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

North Carolina

Respondent

Southern R. Co.

Consolidation

No. 93

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 93 (1964)

Argued

January 14-15, 1964

Decided

Monday, February 17, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Southern R. Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

Foti v. Immigration Service

Thu, 17 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Foti

Respondent

Immigration Service

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 217 (1963)

Argued

Thursday, October 17, 1963, Monday, October 21, 1963

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Foti, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Simpson v. Union Oil Co.

Wed, 15 Jan 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Simpson

Respondent

Union Oil Co.

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 13 (1964)

Argued

January 15-16, 1964

Decided

Monday, April 20, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Simpson, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

United States v. Boyd

Mon, 20 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

185

Petitioner

Boyd

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 39 (1964)

Argued

April 20-21, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Boyd, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Atomic Energy

None

Fields v. City Of Fairfield

Tue, 10 Dec 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

City Of Fairfield

Respondent

Fields

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 248 (1963)

Argued

December 10-11, 1963

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Fields, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Clinton v. Virginia

Mon, 27 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

294

Appellee

Virginia

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Clinton

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 158 (1964)

Argued

Monday, April 27, 1964

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Clinton, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. Stapf

Wed, 23 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Stapf

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 118 (1963)

Argued

October 23-24, 1963

Decided

Monday, December 2, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Italia Soc. v. Ore. Stevedoring Co.

Wed, 08 Jan 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Italia Soc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ore. Stevedoring Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 315 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, January 8, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Italia Soc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Polar Co. v. Andrews

Wed, 20 Nov 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Andrews

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Polar Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 361 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, November 20, 1963

Decided

Monday, January 6, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Polar Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Dept. Of Revenue v. James Beam Co.

Mon, 23 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

389

Petitioner

Dept. Of Revenue

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

James Beam Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 341 (1964)

Argued

Monday, March 23, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for James Beam Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 2: Export-Import Clause

None

Van Dusen v. Barrack

Wed, 08 Jan 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Van Dusen

Respondent

Barrack

Consolidation

No. 80

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 612 (1964)

Argued

January 8-9, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 30, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Van Dusen, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1404

None

Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting

Thu, 16 Jan 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

106

Petitioner

Compco Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Day-Brite Lighting

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 234 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, January 16, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Compco Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Mrvica v. Esperdy

Thu, 05 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

353

Petitioner

Mrvica

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Esperdy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 560 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, March 5, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 30, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Esperdy, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Aldrich v. Aldrich

Thu, 24 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Aldrich

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aldrich

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 540 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, October 24, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Aldrich, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause

None

Brooks v. Missouri P. R. Co.

Tue, 07 Jan 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Brooks

Respondent

Missouri P. R. Co.

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 182 (1964)

Argued

January 7-8, 1964

Decided

Monday, February 17, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Brooks, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Labor Board v. Servette

Wed, 19 Feb 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

111

Petitioner

Labor Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Servette

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 46 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, February 19, 1964

Decided

Monday, April 20, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Labor Board, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

General Motors v. Washington

Wed, 26 Feb 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

115

Appellee

Washington

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

General Motors

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 436 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, February 26, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Washington, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

New York Times v. Sullivan

Mon, 06 Jan 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Location

New York Times Office

620 Eighth Avenue New York NY 10018

New York, NY 10018

United States

40° 45' 22.3236" N, 73° 59' 25.3608" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

New York Times

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sullivan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Abernathy v. Sullivan, No. 40

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 254 (1964)

Argued

January 6-7, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1964

Advocates

M. Roland Nachman, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Herbert Wechsler (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Decided together with Abernathy v. Sullivan, this case concerns a full-page ad in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King's efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad was truthful was unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Sullivan won a $500,000 judgment.

Question

Did Alabama's libel law, by not requiring Sullivan to prove that an advertisement personally harmed him and dismissing the same as untruthful due to factual errors, unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of press protections?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for New York Times, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity). Under this new standard, Sullivan's case collapsed.

Hudson Distributors v. Eli Lilly

Wed, 29 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

490

Petitioner

Eli Lilly

Respondent

Hudson Distributors

Consolidation

No. 489

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 386 (1964)

Argued

April 29-30, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Eli Lilly, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 45

None

Griffin v. School Board

Mon, 30 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

592

Petitioner

Griffin

Respondent

School Board

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 218 (1964)

Argued

Monday, March 30, 1964

Decided

Monday, May 25, 1964

Advocates

John R. Carter (for the petitioners)

R. D. McIlwaine, III (Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, for the respondents)

J. Segar Gravatt (for the respondents)

Archibald Cox (Solicitor General, Department of Justice, by special leave of Court, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Griffin, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Massiah v. United States

Tue, 03 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

199

Petitioner

Massiah

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 201 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, March 3, 1964

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Massiah, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Mechling Barge Lines v. U.S.

Tue, 18 Feb 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

U.S.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mechling Barge Lines

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 59

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 375 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, February 18, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 23, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mechling Barge Lines, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

United States v. Zacks

Mon, 21 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Zacks

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 59 (1963)

Argued

Monday, October 21, 1963

Decided

Tuesday, November 12, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Bell v. Maryland

Mon, 14 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Bell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maryland

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 226 (1964)

Argued

Monday, October 14, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Bell, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Barr v. City Of Columbia

Mon, 14 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Barr

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

City Of Columbia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 146 (1964)

Argued

Monday, October 14, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Barr, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Arnold v. North Carolina

Thu, 26 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

572

Petitioner

Arnold

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

North Carolina

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 773 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, March 26, 1964

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Arnold, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Thompson v. I. N. S.

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:13:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

496

Petitioner

Thompson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

I. N. S.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 384 (1964)

Decided

Monday, January 6, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Thompson, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Federal Power Comm'n v. Texaco

Wed, 25 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

386

Petitioner

Federal Power Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Texaco

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 33 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, March 25, 1964

Decided

Monday, April 20, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Federal Power Comm'n, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Natural Gas, or Natural Gas Policy Acts

None

Massachusetts Trustees v. U.S.

Mon, 24 Feb 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

137

Petitioner

Massachusetts Trustees

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 235 (1964)

Argued

Monday, February 24, 1964

Decided

Monday, May 25, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for U.S., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 50 U.S.C. 1738

None

Corey v. United States

Thu, 17 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Corey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 169 (1963)

Argued

Thursday, October 17, 1963

Decided

Monday, December 9, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Corey, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 4208

None

Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado

Tue, 31 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

508

Appellee

Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lucas

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 713 (1964)

Argued

March 31-April 1, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1964

Advocates

George Louis Creamer (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Archibald Cox (By special leave of Court, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging reversal)

Anthony F. Zarlengo (Argued the cause for the Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado)

Stephen H. Hart (Argued the cause for Johnson et al., appellees)

Charles Ginsberg (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

Acting on behalf of several voters in the Denver area, Andres Lucas sued various officials connected with Colorado's elections challenging the apportionment of seats in both houses of the Colorado General Assembly. Under Colorado's apportionment plan, the House of Representatives was apportioned on the basis of population but the apportionment of the Senate was based on a combination of population and other factors (geography, compactness and contiguity, accessibility, natural boundaries, and conformity to historical divisions). Consequently, counties with only about one-third of the State's total population would elect a majority of the Senate; the maximum population- variance ratio would be about 3.6-to-1; and the chief metropolitan areas, with over two-thirds of the State's population, could elect only a bare majority of the Senate. When a three-judge District Court upheld the plan, stressing its recent approval by the electorate, the Supreme Court granted Lucas certiorari.

Question

Is a majority-approved state apportionment plan that permits one house of its congress to be largely apportioned on the basis of factors other than population distribution in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Lucas, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. In a 6-to-3 opinion, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause requires all districts to be substantially apportioned on a population bases. While noting that some deviation from strict population considerations may be permitted to offset minor underrepresentations of one group or another, the wholesale neglect of population considerations is unconstitutional. The Court added that although a majority of the Colorado electorate approved its apportionment scheme, this cannot override even a single individual's constitutionally protected right to cast an equally weighted vote. The apportionment of Colorado's Senate rendered population considerations virtually insignificant, and was therefore unconstitutional.

Reynolds v. Sims

Wed, 13 Nov 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Alabama State Capitol

600 Dexter Avenue Montgomery AL 36104

Montgomery, AL 36104

United States

32° 22' 39.5544" N, 86° 18' 6.786" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Sims

Respondent

Reynolds

Consolidation

Vann et al. v. Baggett, Secretary of State of Alabama, et al., No. 27

McConnell et al. v. Baggett, Secretary of State of Alabama, et al., No. 41

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 533 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, November 13, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1964

Advocates

Charles Morgan, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellees)

W. McLean Pitts (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

In 1961, M.O. Sims, David J. Vann (Vann v. Baggett), John McConnell (McConnell v. Baggett), and other voters from Jefferson County, Alabama, challenged the apportionment of the state legislature. The Alabama Constitution prescribed that each county was entitled to at least one representative and that there were to be as many senatorial districts as there were senators. Population variance ratios of as great as 41-to-1 existed in the Senate.

Question

Did Alabama's apportionment scheme violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by mandating at least one representative per county and creating as many senatorial districts as there were senators, regardless of population variances?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Sims, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court upheld the challenge to the Alabama system, holding that Equal Protection Clause demanded "no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens...." Noting that the right to direct representation was "a bedrock of our political system," the Court held that both houses of bicameral state legislatures had to be apportioned on a population basis. States were required to "honest and good faith" efforts to construct districts as nearly of equal population as practicable.

Wright v. Rockefeller

Tue, 19 Nov 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Rockefeller

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Wright

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 52 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, November 19, 1963

Decided

Monday, February 17, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Rockefeller, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Wesberry v. Sanders

Mon, 18 Nov 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Georgia General Assembly

206 Washington Street Capitol Square Atlanta GA 30334

Atlanta, GA 30334

United States

33° 44' 53.826" N, 84° 23' 17.5344" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Sanders

Respondent

Wesberry

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 1 (1964)

Argued

November 18-19, 1963

Decided

Monday, February 17, 1964

Advocates

Frank T. Cash (Pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, argued the cause for the appellants)

Emmet J. Bondurant, II (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Bruce J. Terris (By special leave of Court, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

James P. Wesberry, Jr. filed a suit against the Governor of Georgia, Carl E. Sanders, protesting the state's apportionment scheme. The Fifth Congressional District, of which Wesberry was a member, had a population two to three times larger than some of the other districts in the state. Wesberry claimed this system diluted his right to vote compared to other Georgia residents.

Question

Did Georgia's congressional districts violate the Fourteenth Amendment or deprive citizens of the full benefit of their right to vote?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Wesberry, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Composition of the House of Representatives

The Court held that Georgia's apportionment scheme grossly discriminated against voters in the Fifth Congressional District. Because a single congressman had to represent two to three times as many people as were represented by congressmen in other districts, the Georgia statute contracted the value of some votes and expanded the value of others. The Court recognized that "no right is more precious" than that of having a voice in elections and held that "[t]o say that a vote is worth more in one district than in another would not only run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government, it would cast aside the principle of a House of Representatives elected 'by the People. . .'"

United States v. Behrens

Thu, 17 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Behrens

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 162 (1963)

Argued

Thursday, October 17, 1963

Decided

Monday, December 9, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Behrens, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 4208

None

Viking Theatre v. Paramount Film

Mon, 27 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

481

Petitioner

Viking Theatre

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Paramount Film

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 123 (1964)

Argued

Monday, April 27, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Paramount Film, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Rabinowitz v. Kennedy

Mon, 02 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

287

Petitioner

Rabinowitz

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kennedy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 605 (1964)

Argued

Monday, March 2, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 30, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Kennedy, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 22 U.S.C. 611

None

Dresner v. City Of Tallahassee

Wed, 23 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Dresner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

City Of Tallahassee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 136 (1963)

Argued

Wednesday, October 23, 1963

Decided

Monday, December 2, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for City Of Tallahassee, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Publishers' Assn. v. Mailers' Union

Mon, 23 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

384

Petitioner

Publishers' Assn.

Respondent

Mailers' Union

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 775 (1964)

Argued

March 23-24, 1964

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Publishers' Assn., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Gotthilf v. Sills

Thu, 24 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Gotthilf

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sills

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 79 (1963)

Argued

Thursday, October 24, 1963

Decided

Monday, November 18, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Sills, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

None

Schneider v. Rusk

Thu, 02 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

368

Appellee

Rusk

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Schneider

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 163 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, April 2, 1964

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Schneider, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Reisman v. Caplin

Thu, 12 Dec 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

119

Petitioner

Reisman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Caplin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 440 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, December 12, 1963

Decided

Monday, January 20, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Caplin, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Mercer v. Theriot

Wed, 22 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

336

Petitioner

Mercer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Theriot

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 152 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, April 22, 1964

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mercer, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Stoner v. California

Tue, 25 Feb 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

209

Petitioner

Stoner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 483 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, February 25, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 23, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Stoner, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Fallen v. United States

Thu, 30 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

210

Petitioner

Fallen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 139 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, April 30, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Fallen, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

United States v. Vermont

Tue, 21 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

509

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Vermont

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 351 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, April 21, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Vermont, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

National Rental v. Szukhent

Wed, 20 Nov 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

National Rental

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Szukhent

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 311 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, November 20, 1963

Decided

Monday, January 6, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for National Rental, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Arceneaux v. Louisiana

Wed, 15 Jan 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Arceneaux

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 336 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, January 15, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Louisiana, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

None

Calhoun v. Latimer

Tue, 31 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

623

Petitioner

Calhoun

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Latimer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 263 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, March 31, 1964

Decided

Monday, May 25, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Calhoun, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Labor Board v. Parts Co.

Wed, 11 Dec 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Labor Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Parts Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 405 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, December 11, 1963

Decided

Monday, January 13, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Labor Board, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Teamsters Union v. Morton

Wed, 29 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

485

Petitioner

Teamsters Union

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Morton

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 252 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, April 29, 1964

Decided

Monday, May 25, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Teamsters Union, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

United States v. Penn-Olin Co.

Thu, 30 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

503

Appellee

Penn-Olin Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 158 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, April 30, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

Split Vote

None

John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston

Thu, 09 Jan 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

John Wiley & Sons

Respondent

Livingston

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 543 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, January 9, 1964, Monday, January 13, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 30, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Livingston, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Roman v. Sincock

Mon, 09 Dec 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

307

Appellee

Sincock

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Roman

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 695 (1964)

Argued

Monday, December 9, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1964

Advocates

Archibald Cox (By special leave of Court, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance)

Vincent A. Theisen (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Frederick Bernays Wiener (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Baker v. Carr (369 U.S. 186) Richard Sincock and several other New Castle County residents, taxpayers, and qualified voters, challenged the constitutionality of Delaware's apportionment scheme. The suit alleged that under Delaware's 1897 state constitution, no provisions existed for reapportionment that would reflect the changing demographic face of New Castle County and the City of Wilmington. On a appeal from a three-judge district court ruling against the state of Delaware, the Supreme Court granted Mabel Roman, Delaware's elections clerk, certiorari.

Question

Did Delaware's apportionment scheme violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, by disregarding population as a basis for determining congressional districts?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Sincock, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. In an 8-to-1 decision the Court held that Delaware's apportionment practices, as codified in its state constitution both before and after a 1963 amendment, violated the Due Process Clause. Delaware's system of having one upper house apportioned on a geographical basis and one lower house apportioned on population basis was unconstitutional since population is the only permissible guide to apportionment.

Chamberlin v. Public Instruction Bd.

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:13:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

939

Appellee

Public Instruction Bd.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Chamberlin

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 402 (1964)

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Chamberlin, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

None

Donovan v. City Of Dallas

Wed, 22 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

264

Petitioner

Donovan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

City Of Dallas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 408 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, April 22, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Donovan, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

United States v. El Paso Gas Co.

Tue, 25 Feb 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

El Paso Gas Co.

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 651 (1964)

Argued

February 25-26, 1964

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

United States v. Alcoa

Thu, 23 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

204

Appellee

Alcoa

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 271 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, April 23, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Fahy v. Connecticut

Wed, 16 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Fahy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Connecticut

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 85 (1963)

Argued

Wednesday, October 16, 1963

Decided

Monday, December 2, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Fahy, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

United States v. Ward Baking Co.

Tue, 18 Feb 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

101

Appellee

Ward Baking Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 327 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, February 18, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Malloy v. Hogan

Thu, 05 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Apartment

600 Asylum Street Hartford CT 06103

Hartford, CT 06103

United States

41° 46' 4.4724" N, 72° 40' 56.8992" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

110

Petitioner

Malloy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hogan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 1 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, March 5, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1964

Advocates

Harold Strauch (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

John D. LaBelle (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

William Malloy was arrested during a gambling raid in 1959 by Hartford, Connecticut police. After pleading guilty to pool selling, a misdemeanor, he was sentenced to one year in jail and fined $500, but the sentence was suspended after 90 days and Malloy was placed on two years probation. Some 16 months following his plea, a Superior Court appointed referee ordered Malloy to testify about gambling and other criminal activities in Hartford County. When Malloy refused, "on grounds it may tend to incriminate [him]" he was imprisoned for contempt and held until willing to answer questions. Malloy filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his confinement. On appeal from the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors ruling, upholding an adverse Superior Court denial, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question

Does the Fourteenth Amendment protect a state witness's Fifth Amendment guarantee again self-incrimination in a criminal proceeding?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Malloy, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

Yes. In a 5-to-4 opinion, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment's exception from compulsory self-incrimination is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgement by a state. When determining if state officers properly obtained a confession, one must focus on whether the statements were made freely and voluntarily without any direct or implied promised or improper influence. Noting that the American judicial system is accusatorial, not inquisitorial, the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment secures defendants against self-incrimination and compels state and federal officials to establish guilt by evidence that is free and independent of a suspect's or witnesses' statements.

Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Co.

Mon, 17 Feb 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Aro Mfg. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Convertible Top Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 476 (1964)

Argued

Monday, February 17, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Aro Mfg. Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 35 U.S.C. 271

None

A Quantity Of Books v. Kansas

Wed, 01 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

449

Petitioner

Kansas

Respondent

A Quantity Of Books

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 205 (1964)

Argued

April 1-2, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for A Quantity Of Books, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Coleman v. Alabama

Wed, 25 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

583

Petitioner

Coleman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alabama

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 129 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, March 25, 1964

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Coleman, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Bruning v. United States

Tue, 03 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

423

Petitioner

Bruning

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 358 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, March 3, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 23, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Diamond v. Louisiana

Thu, 20 Feb 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

100

Petitioner

Diamond

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 201 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, February 20, 1964

Decided

Monday, February 24, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Louisiana, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Rugendorf v. United States

Thu, 27 Feb 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

223

Petitioner

Rugendorf

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 528 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, February 27, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 30, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Federal Power Comm'n v. Hunt

Mon, 02 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

273

Petitioner

Federal Power Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hunt

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 515 (1964)

Argued

Monday, March 2, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 30, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Federal Power Comm'n, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Natural Gas, or Natural Gas Policy Acts

None

Red Ball Motor Freight v. Shannon

Tue, 28 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

406

Appellee

Shannon

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Red Ball Motor Freight

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 421

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 311 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, April 28, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Shannon, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

Dresner v. City Of Tallahassee

Wed, 23 Oct 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Dresner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

City Of Tallahassee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 539 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, October 23, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for City Of Tallahassee, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Parden v. Terminal R. Co.

Wed, 26 Feb 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

157

Petitioner

Parden

Respondent

Terminal R. Co.

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 184 (1964)

Argued

February 26-27, 1964

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Parden, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Meeker v. Ambassador Oil Corp.

Tue, 19 Nov 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Meeker

Respondent

Ambassador Oil Corp.

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 160 (1963)

Argued

November 19-20, 1963

Decided

Monday, December 2, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Meeker, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. Montgomery, Inc.

Wed, 08 Jan 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Montgomery, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 389 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, January 8, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 23, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Montgomery, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

Hostetter v. Idlewild Liquor Corp.

Mon, 23 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

116

Appellee

Idlewild Liquor Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hostetter

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 324 (1964)

Argued

Monday, March 23, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Idlewild Liquor Corp., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n

Thu, 05 Mar 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

138

Petitioner

Murphy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Waterfront Comm'n

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 52 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, March 5, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Murphy, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Aptheker v. Secretary Of State

Tue, 21 Apr 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

461

Appellee

Secretary Of State

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Aptheker

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 500 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, April 21, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Aptheker, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Smith, Subversive Activities Control, Communist Control, or other similar federal legislation except the Internal Security Act (qv.)

None

Louisiana v. Mississippi

Tue, 10 Dec 1963 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

14 ORIG

Petitioner

Louisiana

Respondent

Mississippi

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 24 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, December 10, 1963, Tuesday, November 16, 1965

Decided

Monday, April 18, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Louisiana, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Preston v. United States

mgruhn — Tue, 25 Feb 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

163

Petitioner

Preston

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 364 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, February 25, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 23, 1964

Facts of the Case

Not available

Question

Not available

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Preston, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fourth Amendment

Not available