Cases - 1965 term

Seagram & Sons v. Hostetter

Wed, 23 Feb 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

545

Appellee

Hostetter

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Seagram & Sons

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 35 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, February 23, 1966

Decided

Tuesday, April 19, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Harris v. United States

Mon, 11 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Harris

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 162 (1965)

Argued

October 11-12, 1965

Decided

Monday, December 6, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mine Workers v. Gibbs

Thu, 20 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

243

Petitioner

Mine Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gibbs

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 715 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, January 20, 1966

Decided

Monday, March 28, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Equitable Life

Thu, 21 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

645

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Equitable Life

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 323 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, April 21, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Brenner

Wed, 17 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Hazeltine Research, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brenner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 252 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, November 17, 1965

Decided

Wednesday, December 8, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Brenner, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 35 U.S.C. 103

None

Railway Clerks v. Florida E. C. R. Co.

Wed, 20 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

750

Petitioner

Railway Clerks

Respondent

Florida E. C. R. Co.

Consolidation

No. 782

No. 783

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 238 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, April 20, 1966

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Florida E. C. R. Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Railway Labor

None

Evans v. Newton

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Evans

Respondent

Newton

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 296 (1966)

Argued

November 9-10, 1965

Decided

Monday, January 17, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Grace & Sons

Wed, 23 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

439

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Grace & Sons

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 424 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, March 23, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 41 U.S.C. 321

None

Icc v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

Mon, 06 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Icc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 576 (1966)

Argued

Monday, December 6, 1965

Decided

Tuesday, March 22, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Icc, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

United States v. Huck Manufacturing Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Huck Manufacturing Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 197 (1965)

Argued

Monday, November 15, 1965

Decided

Monday, December 6, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Huck Manufacturing Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. O'malley

Mon, 24 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

127

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

O'malley

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 627 (1966)

Argued

January 24-25, 1966

Decided

Wednesday, March 23, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Baxstrom v. Herold

Thu, 09 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

219

Petitioner

Baxstrom

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Herold

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 107 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, December 9, 1965

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Giaccio v. Pennsylvania

Mon, 06 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Giaccio

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 399 (1966)

Argued

Monday, December 6, 1965

Decided

Wednesday, January 19, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Standard Oil Co.

Tue, 25 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

291

Appellee

Standard Oil Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 224 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, January 25, 1966

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 33 U.S.C. 407

None

Dennis v. United States

Wed, 20 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Congress

Constitution and Delaware Street Washington D.C. 20002

Washington 20002

United States

38° 53' 31.1496" N, 77° 0' 29.1744" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

502

Petitioner

Raymond Dennis et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 855 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, April 20, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1966

Advocates

Telford Taylor (argued the cause for the petitioners)

Nathan Lewin (argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

Raymond Dennis and others were members of the Communist Party; they were also officers and members of the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers. They filed false affidavits between 1949 and 1955 to satisfy the stipulations of 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, which required all union officers to submit non-Communist affidavits. The union officials retained their Communist Party affiliations, filed the affidavits, and enabled the union to use the services of the National Labor Relations Board. The union officers were indicted by the United States District Court for conspiracy to fraudulently obtain the services of the National Labor Relations Board.

Question

Does the indictment charge a conspiracy to defraud the United States Government consistent with 18 U.S.C. 371? 2. Is section 9(h) of the Taft- Hartley Act a bill of attainder in violation of Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution? 3. Did the trial court err in denying the defense's request for access to grand jury testimony of prosecution witnesses or in camera inspection of the testimony?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Dennis, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 371

Yes, not addressed, and yes. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that the indictment properly charged a conspiracy to defraud the United States Government under 18 U.S.C. 371. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Abe Fortas, argued that the conspiracy of filing the false affidavits was intentional and that the events of filing the affidavits and using the NLRB facilities together were a “concert of action” with the purpose of defrauding the Government. The Court refused to hear the question of the constitutionality of 9(h) as the union officers' attempt was to circumvent the law. The relevant standard, according to Fortas, is that the Court will not hear a constitutionality claim to supplant a "voluntary, deliberate, and calculated course of fraud and deceit," as conspiracy to defraud is not an appropriate way to challenge acts of government. The Court also held that the defense should have been allowed access to the grand jury minutes containing the prosecution witnesses' testimonies with an opportunity to question the witnesses regarding their statements. The majority opinion maintained that the union officers exceeded the particularized need standard that is used to evaluate access to grand jury testimony, and thus access should have been granted to the defense, especially as an evaluation is best made by a defense advocate and not a trial judge during in-camera inspection. Justices William O. Douglas and Hugo L. Black joined this part of the majority opinion but dissented from the remainder. The Court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Nicholas v. United States

Tue, 19 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

650

Petitioner

Nicholas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 678 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, April 19, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Nicholas, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Louisiana v. Mississippi

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

14 ORIG

Petitioner

Louisiana

Respondent

Mississippi

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 24 (1966)

Argued

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

Decided

Monday, April 18, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Memoirs v. Massachusetts

Tue, 07 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

368

Appellee

Massachusetts

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Memoirs

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 413 (1966)

Argued

December 7-8, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 21, 1966

Advocates

William I. Cowin (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Charles Rembar (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

A special provision of Massachusetts law allowed the Attorney General to initiate legal proceedings against an "obscene" book, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure. The book, also known as Fanny Hill, was written by John Cleland in about 1750. Massachusetts courts, despite the defenses put forward by the book's publisher and copyright holder, judged the work to be obscene.

Question

Did the actions of Massachusetts violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Memoirs, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

The Court held that the Massachusetts courts erred in finding Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure to be obscene. The Court, applying the test for obscenity established in Roth v. United States, held that the book was not "utterly without redeeming social value." The Court reaffirmed that books could not be deemed obscene unless they were unqualifiedly worthless, even if the books possessed prurient appeal and were "patently offensive."

Stevens v. Marks

Mon, 24 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

210

Petitioner

Stevens

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Marks

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 290

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 234 (1966)

Argued

Monday, January 24, 1966

Decided

Monday, February 28, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Stevens, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Shillitani v. United States

Wed, 02 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

412

Petitioner

Shillitani

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 442

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 364 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, March 2, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Shillitani, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Schmerber v. California

Mon, 25 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

658

Petitioner

Schmerber

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 757 (1966)

Argued

Monday, April 25, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1966

Advocates

Thomas M. McGurrin (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Edward L. Davenport (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Schmerber had been arrested for drunk driving while receiving treatment for injuries in a hospital. During his treatment, a police officer ordered a doctor to take a blood sample which indicated that Schmerber had been drunk while driving. The blood test was introduced as evidence in court and Schmerber was convicted.

Question

Did the blood test violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee against self- incrimination?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for California, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

No. Justice Brennan argued for a unanimous Court that the protection against self-incrimination applied specifically to compelled communications or testimony. Since the results of the blood test were neither "testimony nor evidence relating to some communicative act or writing by the petitioner, it was not inadmissible on privilege grounds."

United States v. Blue

Thu, 21 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

531

Appellee

Blue

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 251 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, April 21, 1966

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Carnation Co. v. Pacific Conference

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Carnation Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pacific Conference

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 213 (1966)

Argued

Monday, November 8, 1965

Decided

Monday, February 28, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Carnation Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 46 U.S.C. 814

None

Elfbrandt v. Russell

Thu, 24 Feb 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

656

Petitioner

Elfbrandt

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Russell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 11 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, February 24, 1966

Decided

Monday, April 18, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Elfbrandt, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Ginzburg v. United States

Tue, 07 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Ginzburg

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 463 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, December 7, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 21, 1966

Advocates

Paul Bender (Argued the cause for the United States, pro hac vice, by special leave of the Court)

Sidney Dickstein (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Ralph Ginzburg and several of his associates were charged with violating a federal obscenity statute for mailing circulars about how and where three different obscene publications could be obtained. Ginzburg challenged his conviction as unconstitutional since the circulars themselves were not obscene. On appeal from an adverse ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding an unfavorable lower court finding, the Supreme Court granted Ginzburg certiorari.

Question

Does conviction under the federal obscenity statute, for pandering advertisements for sexually explicit publications, violate of the First Amendment's free speech protections if the advertisements are not themselves obscene?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1461

Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that although circulars themselves may not be obscene, their public mailing offends the federal obscenity statute if they advertise obscene materials. The Court reasoned that where the sole emphasis of an advertisement is the commercial exploitation of erotica for prurient appeal, it shall be deemed "pornographic" communication that lies beyond the scope of First Amendment speech protections. The Court cautioned, however, that the distribution of materials containing sexuality in the context of art, literature, or science is not per se prohibited under the obscenity statute if it can be shown to advance human knowledge or understanding.

Auto Workers v. Scofield

Wed, 20 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Auto Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Scofield

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 53

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 205 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, October 20, 1965

Decided

Monday, December 20, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Auto Workers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1254

None

Gojack v. United States

Thu, 21 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

594

Petitioner

Gojack

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 702 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, April 21, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Gojack, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 2 U.S.C. 192

None

Rogers v. Paul

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:21:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

532

Petitioner

Rogers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Paul

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 198 (1965)

Decided

Monday, December 6, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rogers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Graham v. John Deere Co.

Thu, 14 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Graham

Respondent

John Deere Co.

Consolidation

No. 37

No. 43

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 1 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, October 14, 1965

Decided

Monday, February 21, 1966

Advocates

S. Tom Morris (Argued the cause for respondents in No. 11)

Gordon D. Schmidt (Argued the cause for respondent in Nos. 37 and 43)

Orville O. Gold (Argued the cause for petitioners in No. 11)

Dennis G. Lyons (Argued the cause for petitioners in Nos. 37 and 43)

Facts of the Case

Graham v. John Deere Co. was a suit for the infringement of a patent that consisted of a combination of old mechanical elements for a device designed to absorb shock from plow shanks in rocky soil in order to prevent damage to the plow. In 1955, the Fifth Circuit held the patent valid, ruling that a combination is patentable when it produces an "old result in a cheaper and otherwise more advantageous way." Subsequently, the Eighth Circuit held that, since there was no new result in the combination, the patent was invalid. The parties in Calmar, Inc. v. Cook Chemical Co. (No. 37) and Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Cook Chemical Co. (No. 43) sought a declaration of invalidity and noninfringement of a patent on finger-operated sprayers with a "hold-down" cap issued to Cook Chemical. The District Court and the Court of Appeals sustained the patent.

Question

Did the Patent Act of 1952 codify the judicial test of obviousness, adding it to the statutory requirements of novelty and utility for the patentability of an invention? Did the Act change the general level required for the patentability of an invention?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for John Deere Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 35 U.S.C. 103

Yes and no. In an opinion delivered by Justice Tom C. Clark, the Court held that the Patent Act of 1952 did not lower the standards required for the patentability of an invention by adding an inquiry into obviousness to the statutory requirements of novelty and utility. The Court found that section 103 of the 1952 Patent Act Congress added the statutory nonobvious subject matter requirement, the determination of which is made after establishing the scope and content of prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. The Court concluded that the patents do not meet the test of the "nonobvious" nature of the "subject matter sought to be patented" to a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art and were therefore invalid. This affirmed the decision in Graham v. John Deere Co. and reversed the other two.

United States v. Cook

Tue, 19 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

256

Appellee

Cook

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 257 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, April 19, 1966

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 660

None

United States v. Price

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Price

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 60

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 787 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, November 9, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 28, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 242

None

United States v. Yazell

Wed, 13 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yazell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 341 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, October 13, 1965

Decided

Monday, January 17, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Miranda v. Arizona

Mon, 28 Feb 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Maricopa County Jail

201 South 4th Avenue Phoenix AZ 85003

Phoenix, AZ 85003

United States

33° 26' 53.6172" N, 112° 4' 44.1336" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

759

Petitioner

Miranda

Respondent

Arizona

Consolidation

California v. Stewart, No. 584

Vignera v. New York, No. 760

Westover v. United States, No. 761

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Argued

February 28-March 2, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1966

Advocates

John J. Flynn (argued the cause for Miranda, No. 759)

Gary K. Nelson (argued the cause for Arizona, No. 759)

Gordon Ringer (argued the cause for California, No. 584)

William A. Norris (argued the cause for Stewart, No. 584)

Victor M. Earle III (argued the cause for Vignera, No. 760)

William I. Siegel (argued the cause for New York, No. 760)

F. Conger Fawcett (argued the cause for Westover, No. 761)

Thurgood Marshall (Solicitor General, argued the cause for the United States, No. 761)

Telford Taylor (by special leave of the Court, argued the cause for the State of New York, as amicus curiae, in all cases)

Duane R. Nedrud (by special leave of the Court, argued the cause for the National District Attorneys Association, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance in Miranda and Vignera, and reversal in California)

Facts of the Case

The Court was called upon to consider the constitutionality of a number of instances, ruled on jointly, in which defendants were questioned "while in custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom in any significant way." In Vignera v. New York, the petitioner was questioned by police, made oral admissions, and signed an inculpatory statement all without being notified of his right to counsel. Similarly, in Westover v. United States, the petitioner was arrested by the FBI, interrogated, and made to sign statements without being notified of his right to counsel. Lastly, in California v. Stewart, local police held and interrogated the defendant for five days without notification of his right to counsel. In all these cases, suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world. In none of the cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation.

Question

Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifiying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self- incrimination." The Court noted that "the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented" and that "the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition." The Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations.

Katchen v. Landy

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Katchen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Landy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 323 (1966)

Argued

Monday, November 8, 1965

Decided

Monday, January 17, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Landy, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Ftc v. Borden Co.

Wed, 19 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

106

Petitioner

Ftc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Borden Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 637 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, January 19, 1966

Decided

Wednesday, March 23, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Ftc, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Robinson-Patman

None

Collier v. United States

Thu, 24 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

695

Petitioner

Collier

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 59 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, March 24, 1966

Decided

Tuesday, April 19, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Johnson v. New Jersey

Tue, 01 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

762

Petitioner

Johnson

Respondent

New Jersey

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 719 (1966)

Argued

March 1-2, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for New Jersey, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Sheppard v. Maxwell

Mon, 28 Feb 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Southern District Court of Ohio Eastern Division

85 Marconi Boulevard Columbus OH 43215

Columbus, OH 43215

United States

39° 57' 49.9284" N, 83° 0' 19.0584" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

490

Petitioner

Sheppard

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maxwell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 333 (1966)

Argued

Monday, February 28, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1966

Advocates

John T. Corrigan (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Bernard A. Berkman (Argued the cause for the American Civil Liberties Union et al., as amici curiae, urging reversal)

F. Lee Bailey (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

William B. Saxbe (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

After suffering a trial court conviction of second-degree murder for the bludgeoning death of his pregnant wife, Samuel Sheppard challenged the verdict as the product of an unfair trial. Sheppard, who maintained his innocence of the crime, alleged that the trial judge failed to protect him from the massive, widespread, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution. On appeal from an Ohio district court ruling supporting his claim, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. When Sheppard appealed again, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question

What threshold must be crossed before a trial is said to be so prejudicial, due to context and publicity, as to interfere with a defendant's Fifth Amendment due process right to a fair trial?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Sheppard, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 6: Other Sixth Amendment Provisions

In an 8-to-1 decision the Court found that Sheppard did not receive a fair trial. Noting that although freedom of expression should be given great latitude, the Court held that it must not be so broad as to divert the trial away from its primary purpose: adjudicating both criminal and civil matters in an objective, calm, and solemn courtroom setting. The Cleveland television media's repeated broadcasts of Sheppard confessing in detail to crimes he was later charged with, the blatant and hostile trial coverage by Cleveland's radio and print media, and the physical arrangement of the courtroom itself - which facilitated collaboration between the prosecution and present media - all combined to so inflame the jurors' minds against Sheppard as to deny him a fair trial. The Court concluded that the trial judge should have either postponed the proceedings or transferred them to a different venue.

Degregory v. New Hamp. Atty. Gen.

Thu, 24 Feb 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

396

Appellee

New Hamp. Atty. Gen.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Degregory

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 825 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, February 24, 1966

Decided

Monday, April 4, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Johnson

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Johnson

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 169 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, November 10, 1965, Monday, November 15, 1965

Decided

Thursday, February 24, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Johnson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 1: Speech or Debate Clause

None

Mills v. Alabama

Tue, 19 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

597

Appellee

Alabama

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mills

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 214 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, April 19, 1966

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mills, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4

None

United States v. Pabst Brewing Co.

Wed, 27 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

404

Appellee

Pabst Brewing Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 546 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, April 27, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lomenzo v. Wmca, Inc.

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:21:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Wmca, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lomenzo

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 887 (1966)

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Wmca, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Steelworkers v. Bouligny, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Steelworkers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bouligny, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 145 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, October 21, 1965

Decided

Monday, November 22, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bouligny, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2: Extent of Judicial Power

None

Brenner v. Manson

Wed, 17 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Brenner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Manson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 519 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, November 17, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 21, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Brenner, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 35 U.S.C. 101

None

Engineers v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.

Wed, 08 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.

Respondent

Engineers

Consolidation

No. 71

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 423 (1966)

Argued

December 8-9, 1965

Decided

Monday, January 31, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Engineers, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2281

None

Holt v. Alleghany Corp.

Mon, 21 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

131

Petitioner

Holt

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alleghany Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 132

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 28 (1966)

Argued

Monday, March 21, 1966

Decided

Monday, April 18, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Alleghany Corp., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Cheff v. Schnackenberg

Thu, 03 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Cheff

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Schnackenberg

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 373 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, March 3, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Schnackenberg, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Trial By Jury

None

Katzenbach v. Morgan

Mon, 18 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Congress

Constitution and Delaware Street Washington D.C. 20002

Washington 20002

United States

38° 53' 31.1496" N, 77° 0' 29.1744" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

847

Appellant

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Attorney General et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Morgan, et ux

Respondent Type

Appellee

Consolidation

No. 877

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 641 (1966)

Argued

Monday, April 18, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1966

Advocates

Thurgood Marshall (Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the appellants in No. 847)

J. Lee Rankin (argued the cause for the appellants in No. 877)

Alfred Avins (argued the cause for the appellees in both cases)

Rafael Hernandez Colon (Attorney General, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, argued the cause as amicus curiae, urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

New York voters sought declaratory judgment in a New York federal district court to prevent compliance with Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That section provided that no person who successfully completed the sixth grade in a school accredited by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in which the language of instruction was other than English shall be denied the right to vote in any election because of his inability to read or write English. The plaintiffs argued that Section 4(e) prevented the enforcement of New York election laws which required an ability to read and write English as a condition of voting. A three-judge panel of the district court granted declaratory judgment and prevented enforcement of Section 4(e). It held that Congress exceeded its constitutionally designated powers in enacting Section 4(e) and usurped the powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.

Question

Does Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 exceed the scope of Congress' powers to enact legislation because it infringes on powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Katzenbach, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

No. The Supreme Court held that Section 4(e) is a proper exercise of the powers granted to Congress. With Justice William J. Brennan writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that Congress exercised its powers consistent with those afforded it by Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court then concluded that the Supremacy Clause prevented the enforcement of the New York English literacy requirement.

Leh v. General Petroleum Corp.

Mon, 11 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Leh

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

General Petroleum Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 54 (1965)

Argued

Monday, October 11, 1965

Decided

Monday, November 8, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Grinnell Corp.

Mon, 28 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Grinnell Corp.

Respondent

United States

Consolidation

No. 74

No. 75

No. 76

No. 77

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 563 (1966)

Argued

March 28-29, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Perry v. Commerce Loan Co.

Wed, 26 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

694

Petitioner

Perry

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Commerce Loan Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 392 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, January 26, 1966

Decided

Monday, March 7, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Perry, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Pate v. Robinson

Wed, 26 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

382

Petitioner

Pate

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Robinson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 375 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, January 26, 1966

Decided

Monday, March 7, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Commissioner v. Tellier

Thu, 27 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

351

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tellier

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 687 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, January 27, 1966

Decided

Thursday, March 24, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Brown v. Louisiana

Mon, 06 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Brown

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 131 (1966)

Argued

Monday, December 6, 1965

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1966

Advocates

Richard Kilbourne (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Carl Rachlin (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

The Audubon Regional library operated three branches and two bookmobiles. Blacks were not allowed to enter any of the branch libraries. The bookmobiles were segregated: a red one served only whites and a blue one served blacks. Brown was a black man who entered a library branch with four other blacks and requested a book, The Story of the Negro. The librarian informed Brown that the book was not available, but that she would request it through the state library, and he could pick it up or have it mailed to him. After the conversation, the men sat down (making no noise or disturbance) and refused to leave. They were arrested "for not leaving a public building when asked to do so by an officer."

Question

Did the actions of the arresting officer infringe upon Brown's (and his companions') freedom of speech, assembly, and freedom to petition the Government for redress of grievances as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Brown, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

The divided Court found that the actions of the police violated the Constitution. Justice Fortas argued that states may only regulate the use of public facilities in a "reasonably nondiscriminatory manner, equally applicable to all." Maintaining separate library facilities clearly violated this principle. Fortas also reasoned that the demonstration did not disturb the peace of other library patrons or disrupt the library's activities; the time and method of the sit-in were carefully chosen and executed. Justice Black dissented, joined by three other justices. He argued that the First Amendment "does not guarantee to any person the right to use someone else's property, even that owned by government and dedicated to other purposes, as a stage to express dissident ideas."

Brookhart v. Janis

Mon, 21 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

657

Petitioner

Brookhart

Respondent

Janis

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 1 (1966)

Argued

March 21-22, 1966

Decided

Monday, April 18, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Brookhart, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

None

Linn v. Plant Guard Workers

Thu, 18 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Linn

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Plant Guard Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 53 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, November 18, 1965

Decided

Monday, February 21, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Linn, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Davis v. North Carolina

Thu, 28 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

815

Petitioner

Davis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

North Carolina

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 737 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, April 28, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Hicks v. District Of Columbia

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Hicks

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

District Of Columbia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 252 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, October 21, 1965

Decided

Monday, February 28, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for District Of Columbia, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Rosenblatt v. Baer

Wed, 20 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Rosenblatt

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Baer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 75 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, October 20, 1965

Decided

Monday, February 21, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Rosenblatt, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

United States v. Utah Constr. Co.

Wed, 23 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

440

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Utah Constr. Co.

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 394 (1966)

Argued

March 23-24, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 41 U.S.C. 321

None

Segal v. Rochelle

Wed, 17 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Segal

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rochelle

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 375 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, November 17, 1965

Decided

Tuesday, January 18, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm'n

Mon, 06 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Consolo

Respondent

Federal Maritime Comm'n

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 607 (1966)

Argued

December 6-7, 1965

Decided

Tuesday, March 22, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Consolo, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Administrative Procedure, or Administrative Orders Review

None

United Gas v. Callery Properties

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United Gas

Respondent

Callery Properties

Consolidation

No. 22

No. 26

No. 32

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 223 (1965)

Argued

October 18-19, 1965

Decided

Tuesday, December 7, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Malat v. Riddell

Thu, 03 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

487

Petitioner

Malat

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Riddell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 569 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, March 3, 1966

Decided

Monday, March 21, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

NAACP v. Overstreet

Tue, 29 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

505

Petitioner

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Overstreet

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 118 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, March 29, 1966

Decided

Wednesday, April 27, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Overstreet, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

United States v. Speers

Wed, 20 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Speers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 266 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, October 20, 1965

Decided

Monday, December 13, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Speers, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Fribourg Nav. Co. v. Commissioner

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Fribourg Nav. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Commissioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 272 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, November 10, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 7, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Fribourg Nav. Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Greenwood v. Peacock

Tue, 26 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

471

Petitioner

Greenwood

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Peacock

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 649

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 808 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, April 26, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Greenwood, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1443

None

SEC v. New England Electric

Wed, 23 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

636

Petitioner

Securities and Exchange Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New England Electric

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 176 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, March 23, 1966

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for SEC, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 79

None

Wallis v. Pan American Pet. Corp.

Wed, 23 Feb 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

341

Petitioner

Wallis

Respondent

Pan American Pet. Corp.

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 63 (1966)

Argued

February 23-24, 1966

Decided

Monday, April 25, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Wallis, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 30 U.S.C. 181

None

United States v. Guest

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

Location

Where Penn was killed

Broad River and Georgia State Route 172 Corner GA 30629

Corner, GA 30629

United States

34° 9' 24.84" N, 83° 4' 59.88" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Herbert Guest et al.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 745 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, November 9, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 28, 1966

Advocates

Thurgood Marshall (Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States)

Charles J. Bloch (argued the cause for appellee James Lackey)

James E. Hudson (argued the cause for the other appellees)

Facts of the Case

On July 11, 1964 Lt. Col. Lemuel Penn was shot and killed by three members of the Ku Klux Klan while driving home from Washington, D.C. The alleged shooters, James Lackey, Cecil Myers, and Howard Sims, were indicted but acquitted by an all-white jury. Following the acquittal, the three defendants were indicted on charges of conspiracy to threaten, abuse, and kill African- Americans. Three alleged co-conspirators, Denver Phillips, George Turner, and Herbert Guest, were also charged. U.S. Code defines criminal conspiracy as two or more individuals conspiring to "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States." The indictment filed against the six alleged conspirators accused them of acting to deny African-Americans full and equal enjoyment and utilization of goods and services, including access to state highways and free travel to and from Georgia on public streets. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that it did not allege a specific denial of rights under U.S. law. The district court agreed, and dismissed the indictment. The prosecution appealed, arguing that the indictment alleged, in part, a denial of rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Question

Did the alleged actions of the six defendants constitute a denial of rights under the Constitution and U.S. law?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 241

Yes. In an 8-1 opinion authored by Justice Potter Stewart, the Court found that the indictment did allege a denial of constitutional rights. In United States v. Price, an opinion released the same day as Guest, the Court found that Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were covered by the criminal conspiracy statute, and the Court found no reason to distinguish between two clauses of the same amendment. Furthermore, the Court found that, although the Equal Protection Clause only covers state action, such action need not be "exclusive or direct." For instance, the indictment alleged that the conspirators attempted to have African-Americans arrested by filing false criminal reports. Because such an act would involve state actors in the form of law enforcement officials, according to the Court, the Equal Protection Clause applied. "Although it is possible that a bill of particulars, or proof if the case goes to trial, would disclose no cooperative action of that kind by officials of the State, the allegation is enough to prevent dismissal of…the indictment."

United States v. Ewell

Thu, 18 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Ewell

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 116 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, November 18, 1965

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Kent v. United States

Wed, 19 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

104

Petitioner

Kent

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 541 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, January 19, 1966

Decided

Monday, March 21, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Pure Oil Co. v. Suarez

Tue, 19 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

692

Petitioner

Pure Oil Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Suarez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 202 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, April 19, 1966

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Suarez, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1391

None

Snapp v. Neal

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Snapp

Respondent

Neal

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 397 (1966)

Argued

November 15-16, 1965

Decided

Tuesday, January 18, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Snapp, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 50 U.S.C. 574

None

California v. Buzard

Tue, 16 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Buzard

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 386 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, November 16, 1965

Decided

Tuesday, January 18, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Buzard, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 50 U.S.C. 574

None

Ftc v. Brown Shoe Co.

Mon, 25 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

118

Petitioner

Ftc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brown Shoe Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 316 (1966)

Argued

Monday, April 25, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Ftc, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Trade Commission

None

Western Pac. R. Co. v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Western Pac. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 237 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, October 19, 1965

Decided

Tuesday, December 7, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Western Pac. R. Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

United States v. General Motors

Thu, 09 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

General Motors

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 127 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, December 9, 1965

Decided

Thursday, April 28, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Tehan v. Shott

Thu, 18 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Tehan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shott

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 406 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, November 18, 1965

Decided

Wednesday, January 19, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Tehan, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Gunther v. San Diego & A. E. R. Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Gunther

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

San Diego & A. E. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 257 (1965)

Argued

Monday, November 8, 1965

Decided

Wednesday, December 8, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Gunther, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Railway Labor

None

Idaho Metal Works v. Wirtz

Wed, 08 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Idaho Metal Works

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wirtz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 31

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 190 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, December 8, 1965

Decided

Thursday, February 24, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Wirtz, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Georgia v. Rachel

Mon, 25 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

147

Petitioner

Georgia

Respondent

Rachel

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 780 (1966)

Argued

April 25-26, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Rachel, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1443

None

Accardi v. Pennsylvania R. Co.

Thu, 20 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

280

Petitioner

Accardi

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pennsylvania R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 225 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, January 20, 1966

Decided

Monday, February 28, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Accardi, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 54 Stat. 890

None

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections

Tue, 25 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Virginia General Assembly

9th and Grace Street Richmond VA 23219

Richmond, VA 23219

United States

37° 32' 23.8416" N, 77° 26' 4.758" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Virginia Board of Elections

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Harper

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

Butts v. Harrison, Governor of Virginia, No. 655

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 663 (1966)

Argued

January 25-26, 1966

Decided

Thursday, March 24, 1966

Advocates

Allison W. Brown, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellants Harper et al)

Robert L. Segar (Argued the cause for the appellant Butts)

J. A. Jordan, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellant Butts)

George D. Gibson (Argued the cause for the appellees, Virginia Board of Elections and Harrison, in both cases)

Facts of the Case

Annie E. Harper, a resident of Virginia, filed suit alleging that the state's poll tax was unconstitutional. After a three-judge district court dismissed the complaint, the case went to the Supreme Court. This case was decided together with Butts v. Harrison.

Question

Did the Virginia poll tax violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that making voter affluence an electoral standard violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that wealth or fee-paying had no relation to voting qualifications. The Court also noted that the Equal Protection Clause was not "shackled to the political theory of a particular era" and that notions of what constituted equal treatment under the Clause were subject to change.

Auto Workers v. Hoosier Corp.

Thu, 27 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

387

Petitioner

Auto Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hoosier Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 696 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, January 27, 1966

Decided

Thursday, March 24, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Hoosier Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Ftc v. Mary Carter Paint Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Ftc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mary Carter Paint Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 46 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, October 21, 1965

Decided

Monday, November 8, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Ftc, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Trade Commission

None

Burns v. Richardson

Mon, 21 Feb 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

318

Petitioner

Richardson

Respondent

Burns

Consolidation

No. 323

No. 409

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 73 (1966)

Argued

Monday, February 21, 1966

Decided

Monday, April 25, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Burns, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

South Carolina v. Katzenbach

Mon, 17 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Location

South Carolina General Assembly

1301 Gervais St Columbia SC 29201

Columbia, SC 29201

United States

34° 0' 6.8076" N, 81° 1' 54.8976" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

22 ORIG

Plaintiff

South Carolina

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Katzenbach

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 301 (1966)

Argued

January 17-18, 1966

Decided

Monday, March 7, 1966

Advocates

Charles Clark (Argued the cause for the State of Mississippi, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)

Levin H. Campbell (Argued the cause for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as amicus curiae, in support of the defendant)

Archibald Cox (Argued the cause for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as amicus curiae, in support of the defendant)

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach (Defendant, argued the cause pro se)

R. D. McIlwaine, III (Argued the cause for the Commonwealth of Virginia, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)

Francis J. Mizell, Jr. (Argued the cause for the State of Alabama, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)

Daniel R. McLeod (Argued the cause for the plaintiff)

David W. Robinson, II (Argued the cause for the plaintiff)

Joe T. Patterson (Argued the cause for the State of Mississippi, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)

Alan B. Handler (Argued the cause for the State of New Jersey, as amicus curiae, in support of the defendant)

Richmond M. Flowers (Argued the cause for the State of Alabama, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)

Jack P. F. Gremillion (Argued the cause for the State of Louisiana, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)

E. Freeman Leverett (Argued the cause for the State of Georgia, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)

Facts of the Case

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prevented states from using a "test or device" (such as literacy tests) to deny citizens the right to vote. Federal examiners, under the Attorney General's jurisdiction, were empowered to intervene to investigate election irregularities.

Question

Did the Act violate the states' rights to implement and control elections?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Katzenbach, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

The Court upheld the law. Noting that the enforcement clause of the Fifteenth Amendment gave Congress "full remedial powers" to prevent racial discrimination in voting, the Act was a "legitimate response" to the "insidious and pervasive evil" which had denied blacks the right to vote since the Fifteenth Amendment's adoption in 1870.

United States v. Von's Grocery Co.

Tue, 22 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

303

Appellee

Von's Grocery Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 270 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, March 22, 1966

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Time Inc. v. Hill

Wed, 27 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Life Magazine Office

One Time Warner Center New York NY 10019

New York, NY 10019

United States

40° 46' 4.422" N, 73° 58' 56.4096" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Hill

Respondent

Time Inc.

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 374 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, April 27, 1966

Reargued:

October 18-19, 1966

Decided

Monday, January 9, 1967

Advocates

Harold R. Medina, Jr. (Reargued the cause for appellant)

Richard M. Nixon (Reargued the cause for appellee)

Facts of the Case

In 1952, three escaped convicts took James Hill, his wife, and their five children hostage in their Whitemarsh, Pennsylvania, home. After nineteen hours, the family was released unharmed. The convicts were later apprehended in a violent clash with police during which two of them were killed. In 1953, Joseph Hays' published a novel based on the Hill family's ordeal. When the novel was subsequently made into a play, Life Magazine ("Life") printed an article about the play that mirrored many of its inaccuracies concerning the Hill family's experience. Alleging that it deliberately misrepresented his story, Hill sought damages against Life. On appeal from an adverse ruling, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court remanded for a new trial where a reduced adverse ruling was imposed on Life. Following an unsuccessful appeal in the New York Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court granted Life's owner, Time Inc. ("Time") certiorari.

Question

Is a publication, containing misrepresentations about the subject of its coverage, protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantees?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In a 6-to-3 opinion, the Court set aside the Appellate ruling against Time because the lower court failed to instruct the jury that Time's liability was contingent upon a showing that it knowingly and recklessly published false statements about the Hill family. The Court explained that absent a finding of such malicious intent on the part of a publisher, press statements are protected under the First Amendment even if they are otherwise false or inaccurate. The Court remanded for retrial under the new jury instruction.

Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp.

Thu, 20 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

161

Petitioner

Surowitz

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hilton Hotels Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 363 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, January 20, 1966

Decided

Monday, March 7, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Surowitz, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Albertson v. Sacb

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Albertson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sacb

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 70 (1965)

Argued

Monday, October 18, 1965

Decided

Monday, November 15, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Albertson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Smith, Subversive Activities Control, Communist Control, or other similar federal legislation except the Internal Security Act (qv.)

None

Rinaldi v. Yeager

Thu, 21 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

940

Appellee

Yeager

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Rinaldi

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 305 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, April 21, 1966

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham

Mon, 11 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Shuttlesworth

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Birmingham

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 87 (1965)

Argued

Monday, October 11, 1965

Decided

Monday, November 15, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Catto

Tue, 22 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

535

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Catto

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 102 (1966)

Argued

March 22-23, 1966

Decided

Tuesday, April 26, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Cardona v. Power

Mon, 18 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

673

Appellee

Power

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Cardona

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 672 (1966)

Argued

Monday, April 18, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Romano

Thu, 14 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Romano

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 136 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, October 14, 1965

Decided

Monday, November 22, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Romano, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 26 U.S.C. 5601

None

United States v. Adams

Thu, 14 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Adams

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 39 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, October 14, 1965

Decided

Monday, February 21, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Adams, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Hanna Mining v. Marine Engineers

Tue, 12 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Hanna Mining

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Marine Engineers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 181 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, October 12, 1965

Decided

Monday, December 6, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Swift & Co. v. Wickham

Wed, 13 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Wickham

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Swift & Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 111 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, October 13, 1965

Decided

Monday, November 22, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Wickham, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1253

None

Ftc v. Dean Foods Co.

Mon, 28 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

970

Petitioner

Ftc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dean Foods Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 597 (1966)

Argued

Monday, March 28, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Ftc, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1651

None

Ashton v. Kentucky

Thu, 28 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

619

Petitioner

Ashton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kentucky

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 195 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, April 28, 1966

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Walker, Inc. v. Food Machinery

Tue, 12 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Walker, Inc.

Respondent

Food Machinery

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 172 (1965)

Argued

October 12-13, 1965

Decided

Monday, December 6, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Walker, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Mishkin v. New York

Tue, 07 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

New York

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mishkin

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 502 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, December 7, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 21, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for New York, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Amell v. United States

Mon, 24 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

282

Petitioner

Amell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 158 (1966)

Argued

Monday, January 24, 1966

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None