Cases - 1964 term

Gillespie v. U.S. Steel Corp.

Tue, 13 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Gillespie

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S. Steel Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 148 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1964

Decided

Monday, December 7, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for U.S. Steel Corp., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Employers' Liability

None

Henry v. Mississippi

Tue, 13 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Henry

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mississippi

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 443 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1964

Decided

Monday, January 18, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Cameron v. Johnson

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 07:58:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

587 MISC

Appellee

Johnson

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Cameron

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 741 (1965)

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board

Mon, 19 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Fibreboard Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Labor Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 203 (1964)

Argued

Monday, October 19, 1964

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Independent Petroleum Workers, America, v. American Oil

Mon, 09 Nov 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Independent Petroleum Workers, America,

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

American Oil

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 130 (1964)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1964

Decided

Monday, November 23, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for American Oil, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Ryan v. United States

Wed, 14 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Ryan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 61 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, October 14, 1964

Decided

Monday, November 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

Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania

Wed, 31 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

294

Petitioner

Plymouth Sedan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pennsylvania

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 693 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, March 31, 1965

Decided

Thursday, April 29, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Plymouth Sedan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Exclusionary Rule (admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment)

None

Labor Board v. Burnup & Sims

Thu, 15 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Labor Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Burnup & Sims

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 21 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, October 15, 1964

Decided

Monday, November 9, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Griswold v. Connecticut

Mon, 29 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Planned Parenthood Birth Control Clinic

79 Trumbull Street New Haven CT 06511

New Haven, CT 06511

United States

41° 18' 48.3012" N, 72° 55' 22.9908" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

496

Appellee

Connecticut

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Griswold

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 479 (1965)

Argued

March 29-30, 1965

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1965

Advocates

Thomas I. Emerson (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Joseph B. Clark (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.

Question

Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?

Conclusion

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

Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.

Cox v. Louisiana

Wed, 21 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Louisiana

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Cox

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 536 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, October 21, 1964

Decided

Monday, January 18, 1965

Facts of the Case

On the morning of December 15, 1961, Elton Cox led a some 2000 students on an anti-discrimination march that ended in a large assembly before the Baton Rouge, Louisiana, courthouse building. Following police instructions, the demonstrators confined themselves to the west side of the street so as not to interfere with traffic. As the lunch hour neared, Cox encouraged the demonstrators to seek service at any one of several near-by segregated lunch counters. Upon hearing this, the police urged the crowd to disband and began pushing them away from the courthouse. When the demonstrators resisted, police showered them with tear gas and chased them away. The following day, Louisiana police arrested and charged Cox with "disturbing the peace." On appeal from the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision upholding an adverse district court ruling, the Supreme Court granted Cox certiorari.

Question

Does a statutory "disturbance of the peace" conviction, for a peaceable demonstration that contains speech that may potentially incite violence, infringe on a demonstrator's First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court began by noting that none of the demonstrators' activities acceded those that would be expected at any peaceable assembly. Cheering, clapping, and singing do not in themselves constitute a breach of the peace. With respect to Cox's urging the demonstrators to engage in activities which could potentially result in violence, such as demanding service at segregated lunch counters, the Court held that these could not sustain a breach of the peace conviction either. The constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assembly could not be denied because of hostility to their assertion or exercise. The Court noted that free speech protections serve perhaps their best purpose when they invite dispute, induce conditions of unrest, and even stir people to anger over prejudicial preconceptions. Any statute that is so broadly written as to stifle these freedoms shall be stuck down as repugnant to the Constitution.

Angelet v. Fay

Thu, 11 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

578

Petitioner

Angelet

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fay

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 654 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, March 11, 1965

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Fay, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Exclusionary Rule (admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment)

None

United States v. California

Mon, 07 Dec 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Channel Islands National Park CA

United States

33° 56' 57.0912" N, 120° 2' 36.2832" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

5 ORIG

Plaintiff

United States

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

California

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 139 (1965)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1964

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1965

Advocates

Archibald Cox (Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States)

Richard H. Keatinge (Special Assistant Attorney General of California, argued the cause for the defendant)

George N. Hayes (Special Assistant Attorney General of Alaska, by special leave of Court, argued the cause for the State of Alaska, as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

In United States v. California (1947), the Court ruled that the federal government owned rights to the undersea land off the California coast, an area with rich oil and mineral deposits. The Court held that California's rights were limited to low and inland waters and appointed a special master to better define the limits of California's land rights. In a report filed in 1952, the special master based his definition on the one used by the federal government in foreign relations. In 1953, before the Court considered the special master's report, Congress passed the Submerged Land Act, granting to the states' ownership of underwater land within their borders "as they existed at the time such State became a member of the Union." The act limited states' seaward rights, however, to no more than three miles from the coastline. The act also acknowledged states' ownership of land beneath inland waters. The act gave no specific definition of either "coastline" or "inland waters" and did not address bodies of water adjoining the sea, such as bays.

Question

Do rights to the undersea land off the California coast beyond the three-mile limit described in the Submerged Land Act, particularly in the case of bodies of water adjoining the ocean, belong to California or to the federal government?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Submerged Lands Acts

The rights belong to the federal government. In a 5-2 decision authored by Justice John M. Harlan, the Court adopted the approach used by the special master and applied the definition used by the United States in foreign relations. Justice Harlan noted that no consensus on the definition of "inland waters" seemed to exist, and thus chose to establish a reliable, tenable definition, rather than one that could be easily amended by an act of Congress. "'Freezing' the meaning of 'inland waters'…serves to fulfill the requirements of definiteness and stability which should attend any congressional grant of property rights belonging to the United States."

Sec v. American Trailer Rentals

Tue, 10 Nov 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Sec

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

American Trailer Rentals

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 594 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1964

Decided

Monday, January 18, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Burnett v. New York Central R. Co.

Thu, 11 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

437

Petitioner

Burnett

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York Central R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 424 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, March 11, 1965

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Burnett, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Employers' Liability

None

Lamont v. Postmaster General

Mon, 26 Apr 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

491

Appellee

Postmaster General

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lamont

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 848

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 301 (1965)

Argued

Monday, April 26, 1965

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Lamont, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 39 U.S.C. 4008

None

Calhoon v. Harvey

Tue, 20 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Calhoon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Harvey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 134 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, October 20, 1964

Decided

Monday, December 7, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Calhoon, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure

None

Beck v. Ohio

Thu, 15 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Beck

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ohio

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 89 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, October 15, 1964

Decided

Monday, November 23, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Atlas Ins. Co.

Wed, 31 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

489

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Atlas Ins. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 233 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, March 31, 1965

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Railway Clerks v. Employees Assn.

Thu, 04 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

138

Petitioner

Railway Clerks

Respondent

Employees Assn.

Consolidation

No. 139

No. 369

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 650 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, March 4, 1965

Decided

Wednesday, April 28, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Railway Clerks, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Railway Labor

None

Hanna v. Plumer

Thu, 21 Jan 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

171

Petitioner

Hanna

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Plumer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 460 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, January 21, 1965

Decided

Monday, April 26, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Radio Union v. Broadcast Ser

Tue, 02 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Radio Union v. Broadcast Ser

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 255 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, March 2, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 15, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Gainey

Thu, 15 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gainey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 63 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, October 15, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 1, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 26 U.S.C. 5601

None

Atlantic Rfg. Co. v. Ftc.

Tue, 30 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

292

Petitioner

Atlantic Rfg. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ftc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 296

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 357 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, March 30, 1965

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Ftc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Trade Commission

None

Parrot v. Tallahassee

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 07:58:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

958

Petitioner

Parrot

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tallahassee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 129 (1965)

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Dombrowski v. Pfister

Mon, 25 Jan 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Pfister

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Dombrowski

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 479 (1965)

Argued

Monday, January 25, 1965

Decided

Monday, April 26, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Dombrowski, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

None

Mckinnie v. Tennessee

Mon, 08 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

148

Petitioner

Mckinnie

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tennessee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 449 (1965)

Argued

Monday, March 8, 1965

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Holt v. Virginia

Tue, 27 Apr 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

464

Petitioner

Holt

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Virginia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 131 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, April 27, 1965

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Holt, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Udall v. Tallman

Thu, 22 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Udall

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tallman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 1 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, October 22, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 1, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Udall, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Zemel v. Rusk

Mon, 01 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Rusk

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Zemel

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 1 (1965)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1965

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Rusk, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 22 U.S.C. 211

None

Corbett v. Stergios

Tue, 27 Apr 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

179

Appellee

Stergios

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Corbett

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 124 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, April 27, 1965

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Maryland v. United States

Mon, 15 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

345

Petitioner

Maryland

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 41 (1965)

Argued

Monday, March 15, 1965

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Tort Claims, or Alien Tort Statute

None

Meat Cutters v. Jewel Tea

Wed, 27 Jan 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

240

Petitioner

Meat Cutters

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jewel Tea

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 676 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, January 27, 1965

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Meat Cutters, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Abernathy v. Alabama

Mon, 12 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Abernathy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alabama

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 447 (1965)

Argued

Monday, October 12, 1964

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Abernathy, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Textile Workers v. Darlington Co.

Wed, 09 Dec 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Textile Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Darlington Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 41

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 263 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, December 9, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 29, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Textile Workers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Mental Hygiene Dept. v. Kirchner

Tue, 19 Jan 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

111

Petitioner

Mental Hygiene Dept.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kirchner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 194 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, January 19, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mental Hygiene Dept., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Douglas v. Alabama

Tue, 09 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

313

Petitioner

Douglas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alabama

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 415 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, March 9, 1965

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Douglas, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

None

Sansone v. United States

Wed, 10 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

365

Petitioner

Sansone

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 343 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, March 10, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 29, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

California v. Lo-Vaca Co.

Tue, 17 Nov 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

California

Respondent

Lo-Vaca Co.

Consolidation

No. 47

No. 57

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 366 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, November 17, 1964

Decided

Monday, January 18, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for California, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Natural Gas, or Natural Gas Policy Acts

None

United States v. Midland-Ross Corp.

Wed, 31 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

628

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Midland-Ross Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 54 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, March 31, 1965

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

U.S. v. First Nat. City Bank

Mon, 16 Nov 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

U.S.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

First Nat. City Bank

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 378 (1965)

Argued

Monday, November 16, 1964

Decided

Monday, January 18, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

El Paso v. Simmons

Tue, 17 Nov 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Texas State Capitol

1100 Congress Avenue Austin TX 78701

Austin, TX 78701

United States

30° 16' 21.882" N, 97° 44' 28.0752" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Simmons

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

El Paso

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 497 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, November 17, 1964

Decided

Monday, January 18, 1965

Facts of the Case

Since the late 19th century, Texas sold land to facilitate settlement in the state and construction of schools. If, however, a purchaser missed an interest payment on the property, the land was immediately forfeited back to the state unless the owner made the payment before the land could be re-sold. Under this program, Greenbury Simmons purchased and then forfeited some land in 1947. Just over five years later he offered to pay the interest to re-acquire the property. The state refused to comply with his wishes citing a 1941 amendment to its law which gave individuals five years to claim their forfeited land. Simmons's land was sold to the City of El Paso in 1955.

Question

Did the 1941 amendment to the Texas law violate the Contract Clause of the Constitution?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for El Paso, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 1: Contract Clause

While the Court agreed that the power of a state to modify the obligation of a contract is not limitless, it found that the 1941 amendment was not offensive to the Contract Clause. Justice White resaoned that the amendment was enacted with the intent of restoring "confidence in the stability and integrity of land titles" and to rectify difficulties that mineral speculators were creating for the state as it attempted to implement its land sale program. White argued that the five-year limit provided "purchasers with a bona fide interest in their lands" plenty of time to rescue their property while it served an important state interest of encouraging defaulting purchasers to comply with their contractual obligations to Texas.

Case v. Nebraska

Wed, 28 Apr 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

843

Petitioner

Case

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nebraska

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 336 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, April 28, 1965

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Pointer v. Texas

Mon, 15 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

577

Petitioner

Pointer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Texas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 400 (1965)

Argued

Monday, March 15, 1965

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Pointer, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

None

United States v. Brown

Mon, 29 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Longshore and Warehouse Union

1188 Franklin St San Francisco CA 94109

San Francisco, CA 94109

United States

37° 47' 6.5868" N, 122° 25' 22.3644" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

399

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brown

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 437 (1965)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1965

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1965

Advocates

Archibald Cox (Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States)

Richard Gladstein (argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Section 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) of 1959 forbids any member of the Communist Party from serving as an executive officer of a labor union, with the goal of preventing politically-motivated strikes that would pose a danger to the national economy. Archie Brown, a San Francisco longshoreman and admitted member of the Communist Party, was three times elected to the executive board of the local International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union from 1959 through 1961. On May 24, 1961, Brown was charged with violating section 504 of the LMRDA. No evidence was presented at trial suggesting that Brown was involved in any other illegal activity or plotting a political strike. Brown was found guilty and sentenced to six months in prison. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed the conviction and found that section 504 violated the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution. In response to appeal by the United States to the Supreme Court, Brown also argued that section 504 constitutes a bill of attainder, a law that targets a single individual or group, and therefore violates Article I, Section 9.

Question

Does section 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 violate the First or Fifth Amendments or Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Brown, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure

Yes, section 504 violates Article I of the Constitution. In 5-4 opinion authored by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court found that section 504 was indeed a bill of attainder. Section 504, the Chief Justice argued, "plainly" constituted a bill of attainder, defined in the opinion as "legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or groups," by designating "in no uncertain terms the persons who posses the feared characteristics." After finding that section 504 violated the Bill of Attainder Clause, the Court found no need to address questions pertaining to the First and Fifth Amendments.

Schlagenhauf v. Holder

Tue, 13 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Schlagenhauf

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Holder

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 104 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1964

Decided

Monday, November 23, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Brulotte v. Thys Co.

Tue, 20 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Brulotte

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thys Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 29 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, October 20, 1964

Decided

Monday, November 16, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Brulotte, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 35 U.S.C. 154

None

Carrington v. Rash

Thu, 28 Jan 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Carrington

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rash

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 89 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, January 28, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 1, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Carrington, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

American Committee v. Sacb

Tue, 08 Dec 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

American Committee

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sacb

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 503 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, December 8, 1964

Decided

Monday, April 26, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for American Committee, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Smith, Subversive Activities Control, Communist Control, or other similar federal legislation except the Internal Security Act (qv.)

None

American Ship Bldg. v. Labor Board

Thu, 21 Jan 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

255

Petitioner

American Ship Bldg.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Labor Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 300 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, January 21, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 29, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for American Ship Bldg., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Ftc v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

Thu, 10 Dec 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Ftc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Colgate-Palmolive Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 374 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, December 10, 1964

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Ftc, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Trade Commission

None

Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Co.

Mon, 09 Nov 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Farmer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arabian American Oil Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 33

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 227 (1964)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1964

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.

Mon, 05 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Heart of Atlanta Motel

255 Courtland Street NE Atlanta GA 30308

Atlanta, GA 30308

United States

33° 45' 41.4" N, 84° 22' 59.16" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

515

Appellee

U.S.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Heart of Atlanta Motel

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 241 (1964)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1964

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1964

Advocates

Archibald Cox (Argued the cause for the United States)

Moreton Rolleston, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Facts of the Case

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade racial discrimination by places of public accommodation if their operations affected commerce. The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Atlanta, Georgia, refused to accept Black Americans and was charged with violating Title II.

Question

Did Congress, in passing Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, exceed its Commerce Clause powers by depriving motels, such as the Heart of Atlanta, of the right to choose their own customers?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for U.S., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II

The Court held that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate local incidents of commerce, and that the Civil Right Act of 1964 passed constitutional muster. The Court noted that the applicability of Title II was "carefully limited to enterprises having a direct and substantial relation to the interstate flow of goods and people. . ." The Court thus concluded that places of public accommodation had no "right" to select guests as they saw fit, free from governmental regulation.

Susser v. Carvel Corp.

Thu, 29 Apr 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

355

Petitioner

Susser

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Carvel Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 125 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, April 29, 1965

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Carvel Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Jankovich v. Toll Road Comm'n

Thu, 10 Dec 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Jankovich

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Toll Road Comm'n

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 487 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, December 10, 1964

Decided

Monday, January 18, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Toll Road Comm'n, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 49 U.S.C. 1101

None

Dixon v. United States

Tue, 30 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

486

Petitioner

Dixon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 68 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, March 30, 1965

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Armstrong v. Manzo

Tue, 09 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

149

Petitioner

Armstrong

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Manzo

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 545 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, March 9, 1965

Decided

Tuesday, April 27, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Fortson v. Dorsey

Thu, 10 Dec 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

178

Appellee

Dorsey

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Fortson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 433 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, December 10, 1964

Decided

Monday, January 18, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Stanford v. Texas

Thu, 12 Nov 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Stanford

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Texas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 476 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, November 12, 1964

Decided

Monday, January 18, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Stanford, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

United States v. Mississippi

Tue, 26 Jan 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Mississippi

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 128 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, January 26, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1971)

None

Hamm v. Rock Hill

Mon, 12 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Hamm

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rock Hill

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 5

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 306 (1964)

Argued

Monday, October 12, 1964

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hamm, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II

None

United States v. Ventresca

Mon, 18 Jan 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ventresca

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 102 (1965)

Argued

Monday, January 18, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 1, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Singer v. United States

Wed, 18 Nov 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Singer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 24 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, November 18, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 1, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Commissioner v. Brown

Wed, 03 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brown

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 563 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, March 3, 1965

Decided

Tuesday, April 27, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Brown, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Commissioner v. Noel Estate

Thu, 01 Apr 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

503

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Noel Estate

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 678 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, April 1, 1965

Decided

Thursday, April 29, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Whitney Bank v. New Orleans Bank

Thu, 12 Nov 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Whitney Bank

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New Orleans Bank

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 30

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 411 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, November 12, 1964

Decided

Monday, January 18, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Whitney Bank, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 1848

None

Brotherhood, Ry. & Steamship Clerks, v. United Air Lines

Thu, 22 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Brotherhood, Ry. & Steamship Clerks,

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United Air Lines

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 26 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, October 22, 1964

Decided

Monday, November 9, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United Air Lines, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Swain v. Alabama

Tue, 08 Dec 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Swain

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alabama

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 202 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, December 8, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Musicians Federation v. Wittstein

Mon, 16 Nov 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Musicians Federation

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wittstein

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 171 (1964)

Argued

Monday, November 16, 1964

Decided

Monday, December 7, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Musicians Federation, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure

None

Waterman S. S. Corp. v. U.S.

Mon, 26 Apr 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

245

Petitioner

Waterman S. S. Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 252 (1965)

Argued

Monday, April 26, 1965

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for U.S., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 50 U.S.C. 1742

None

Paragon Coal Co. v. Commissioner

Mon, 08 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

134

Petitioner

Paragon Coal Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Commissioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 237

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 624 (1965)

Argued

Monday, March 8, 1965

Decided

Wednesday, April 28, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Paragon Coal Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Hughes Tool Co. v. TWA

Wed, 03 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

443

Petitioner

Hughes Tool Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

TWA

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 248 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, March 3, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Powell

Wed, 14 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Powell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 48 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, October 14, 1964

Decided

Monday, November 23, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Jenkins v. United States

Thu, 01 Apr 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

761

Petitioner

Jenkins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 445 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, April 1, 1965

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Texas v. New Jersey

Mon, 09 Nov 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

13 ORIG

Plaintiff

Texas

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

New Jersey

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 674 (1965)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1964

Decided

Monday, February 1, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Estes v. Texas

Thu, 01 Apr 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

256

Petitioner

Estes

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Texas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 532 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, April 1, 1965

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Estes, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 6: Other Sixth Amendment Provisions

None

Hughes Tool Co. v. TWA

Thu, 04 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

501

Petitioner

Hughes Tool Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

TWA

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 249 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, March 4, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Seeger

Mon, 16 Nov 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Seeger

Consolidation

No. 51

No. 29

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 163 (1965)

Argued

Monday, November 16, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

FPC v. Union Electric Co.

Tue, 02 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

123

Petitioner

Federal Power Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Union Electric Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 90 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, March 2, 1965

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for FPC, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Power

None

American Oil Co. v. Neill

Mon, 25 Jan 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Neill

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

American Oil Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 451 (1965)

Argued

Monday, January 25, 1965

Decided

Monday, April 26, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for American Oil Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Labor Board v. Metropolitan Ins. Co.

Thu, 21 Jan 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Labor Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Metropolitan Ins. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 438 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, January 21, 1965

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Crider v. Zurich Ins. Co.

Tue, 19 Jan 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

116

Petitioner

Crider

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Zurich Ins. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 39 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, January 19, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 1, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Crider, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause

None

FCC v. Schreiber

Tue, 27 Apr 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

482

Petitioner

Federal Communications Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Schreiber

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 279 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, April 27, 1965

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for FCC, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Communication Act of 1934

None

Fortson v. Toombs

Wed, 18 Nov 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

300

Appellee

Toombs

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Fortson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 621 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, November 18, 1964

Decided

Monday, January 18, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Cox v. Louisiana

Wed, 21 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Louisiana

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Cox

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 559 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, October 21, 1964

Decided

Monday, January 18, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Cox, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Jaben v. United States

Tue, 09 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

347

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Jaben

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 214 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, March 9, 1965

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Linkletter v. Walker

Thu, 11 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Location

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

500 Poydras St New Orleans LA 70130

New Orleans, LA 70130

United States

29° 56' 55.6368" N, 90° 4' 3.2772" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Linkletter

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Walker

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 618 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, March 11, 1965

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1965

Advocates

H. Richard Uviller (Argued the cause for the National District Attorneys' Association, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance)

Euel A. Screws, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Teddy W. Airhart, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Victor Linkletter was convicted in state court on evidence illegally obtained by police prior to the Supreme Court decision concerning the Fourth Amendment in Mapp v. Ohio. Mapp applied the exclusionary rule to state criminal proceedings, denying the use of illegally obtained evidence at trial. Linkletter argued for a retrial based on the Mapp decision.

Question

Did the exclusionary rule established in Mapp v. Ohio apply retroactively?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Walker, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Exclusionary Rule (admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment)

In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the Constitution neither prohibited nor required "an absolute rule of retroaction." Only a case-by-case examination of the rules in question was required. The Court reasoned that police misconduct prior to Mapp had already occurred and would not be corrected by releasing the prisoners involved. The Court also argued that applying the Mapp decision retroactively to all cases would threaten the "delicate state-federal relationship" and would "tax the administration of justice to the utmost." Only cases on direct review at the time of the Mapp ruling or later cases would be subject to retroactive consideration.

King v. United States

Mon, 19 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

King

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 329 (1964)

Argued

Monday, October 19, 1964

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 31 U.S.C. 191

None

Warren Trading Post v. Tax Comm'n

Tue, 09 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

115

Appellee

Tax Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Warren Trading Post

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 685 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, March 9, 1965

Decided

Thursday, April 29, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Warren Trading Post, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 25 U.S.C. 261

None

Katzenbach v. McClung

Mon, 05 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Ollie's Barbeque

902 Seventh Avenue Birmingham AL 35228

Birmingham, AL 35228

United States

33° 30' 28.9584" N, 86° 54' 48.7008" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

543

Appellee

McClung

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Katzenbach

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 294 (1964)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1964

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1964

Advocates

Archibald Cox (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Robert McDavid Smith (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

The owner of Ollie's Barbecue, in Birmingham Alabama, refused to serve blacks in apparent violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Part of the Act prevented restaurants serving interstate travelers, or receiving a substantial amount of their food from interstate commerce, from discriminating on the basis of race.

Question

Does a restaurant's refusal to serve blacks burden interstate commerce to an extent that Congress can legitimately prohibit such discrimination?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Katzenbach, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II

The Court found that discrimination in restaurants posed significant burdens on "the interstate flow of food and upon the movement on products generally." Furthermore, argued Justice Clark, discrimination also posed restrictions on blacks who traveled from state to state. Congress's solution to this problem was appropriate and within its bounds to regulate interstate commerce.

Harman v. Forssenius

Mon, 01 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

360

Appellee

Forssenius

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Harman

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 528 (1965)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1965

Decided

Tuesday, April 27, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Harman, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 24: Twenty-Fourth Amendment

None

All States Frgt. v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co.

Wed, 21 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

All States Frgt.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 343 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, October 21, 1964

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

Republic Steel v. Maddox

Wed, 18 Nov 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Republic Steel

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maddox

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 650 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, November 18, 1964

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Republic Steel, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Mine Workers v. Pennington

Wed, 27 Jan 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Mine Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pennington

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 657 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, January 27, 1965

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mine Workers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Turner v. Louisiana

Thu, 19 Nov 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Turner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 466 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, November 19, 1964

Decided

Monday, January 18, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Turner, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Trial By Jury

None

Brigade Veterans v. Sacb

Wed, 09 Dec 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Brigade Veterans

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sacb

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 513 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, December 9, 1964

Decided

Monday, April 26, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Brigade Veterans, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Louisiana v. United States

Tue, 26 Jan 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Louisiana General Assembly

900 North Third Street Baton Rouge LA 70804

Baton Rouge, LA 70804

United States

30° 27' 19.6488" N, 91° 11' 18.5892" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellant

Louisiana

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

United States

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 145 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, January 26, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1965

Advocates

Harry J. Kron, Jr. (Assistant Attorney General of Louisiana, argued the cause for appellants)

Louis F. Claiborne (argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

The Attorney General on behalf of the United States sued Louisiana in a Louisiana federal district court alleging that the state had denied and would continue to deny African-Americans the right to vote. In 1898 Louisiana adopted a constitutional amendment that imposed burdensome requirements for voter registration, but which had a clause exempting those people registered to vote as of January 1, 1867 and the son or grandson of such people. African- Americans were not entitled to vote as of January 1, 1867. The district court agreed with the United States and held that Louisiana's requirements were unconstitutional.

Question

Are the Louisiana constitution's voter registration requirements unconstitutional?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1971)

Yes. The Supreme Court held that the Louisiana constitution's voter registration requirements are unconstitutional. With Justice Hugo L. Black writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that the registration provisions stood in conflict with the Fifteenth Amendment's and 42 U.S.C. § 1971(a)'s prohibitions against discrimination in voting because of race.

Justice John Marshall Harlan II disagreed that 42 U.S.C. § 1971(a) was applicable.

Mclaughlin v. Florida

Tue, 13 Oct 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Florida

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mclaughlin

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 184 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1964

Decided

Monday, December 7, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Gen. Motors v. District Of Columbia

Wed, 10 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

352

Petitioner

Gen. Motors

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

District Of Columbia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 553 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, March 10, 1965

Decided

Tuesday, April 27, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Gen. Motors, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Statutory Provisions of the District of Columbia

None

O'keeffe v. Smith Associates

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 07:58:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

307

Petitioner

O'keeffe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Smith Associates

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 359 (1965)

Decided

Monday, March 29, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for O'keeffe, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 42 U.S.C. 1651

None

Chicago & N.W. R.W. v. Chicago Mil. St. Paul & Pac. R.

Tue, 17 Nov 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Chicago Mil. St. Paul & Pac. R.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Chicago & N.W. R.W.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 448 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, November 17, 1964

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Chicago & N.W. R.W., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Minnesota Mining v. N. J. Wood Co.

Thu, 29 Apr 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

291

Petitioner

Minnesota Mining

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

N. J. Wood Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 311 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, April 29, 1965

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for N. J. Wood Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Freedman v. Maryland

Thu, 19 Nov 1964 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Maryland

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Freedman

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 51 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, November 19, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 1, 1965

Advocates

Felix J. Bilgrey (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Thomas B. Finan (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Maryland required that all films be submitted to a board of censors before being exhibited. The board could disapprove films that were obscene, debased or corrupted morals, or tended to incite crime. There was no time limit on the decision-making process. Ronald Freedman challenged the law as unconstitutional due to the procedures to obtain approval. He did not suggest that prior approval itself was unconstitutional.

Question

Did the the Maryland law violate the freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?

Conclusion

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

The Court found the Maryland law to be invalid. The Court decision reflected a concern that the statute provides the danger of "unduly suppressing protected expression." The board was allowed overly broad licensing discretion with a lack of statutory provisions for judicial participation in the the procedure to prohibit a film. The Court established three guidelines as adequate safeguards to protect against the "undue inhibition of protected expression." These guidelines are to: (1) place the burden of proving the film is unprotected expression on the censors, (2) require judicial determination to impose a valid determination, and (3) require prompt determination "within a specified time period."

Griffin v. California

Tue, 09 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

202

Petitioner

Griffin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 609 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, March 9, 1965

Decided

Wednesday, April 28, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Griffin, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

United Gas Co. v. Continental Oil Co.

Wed, 28 Apr 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

644

Petitioner

United Gas Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Continental Oil Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 693

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 392 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, April 28, 1965

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United Gas Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Natural Gas, or Natural Gas Policy Acts

None

Labor Board v. Brown

Tue, 19 Jan 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Labor Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brown

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 278 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, January 19, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 29, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ftc v. Consolidated Foods

Wed, 10 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

422

Petitioner

Ftc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Consolidated Foods

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 592 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, March 10, 1965

Decided

Wednesday, April 28, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Reserve Life Insurance Co. v. Bowers

Thu, 04 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Bowers

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Reserve Life Insurance Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 258 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, March 4, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 15, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Reserve Life Insurance Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Simons v. Miami Beach Nat. Bank

Wed, 10 Mar 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

363

Petitioner

Simons

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Miami Beach Nat. Bank

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 81 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, March 10, 1965

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Miami Beach Nat. Bank, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause

None

United States v. Boston & M. R. Co.

Thu, 21 Jan 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

232

Appellee

Boston & M. R. Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 157 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, January 21, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None