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, 16 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

14 ORIG

Plaintiff

Louisiana

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Mississippi

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 24 (1966)

Argued

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, 19 May 2012 11:04:35 +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, 19 May 2012 11:04:36 +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