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

Fri, 18 May 2012 04:48:01 +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

Fri, 18 May 2012 04:48:02 +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