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

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

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 (Rgued 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

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Denno

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 368 (1964)

Argued

Monday, December 9, 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.

Appellee

First Nat. Bank

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. 665 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, March 4, 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.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Borak

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 426 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, April 22, 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

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Texas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 108 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, March 25, 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

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fruit Packers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 58 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, February 18, 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

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Westinghouse Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 261 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, December 11, 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

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sabbatino

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 398 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, October 22, 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