Cases - 1966 term

Thorpe v. Housing Authority

Tue, 21 Mar 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

712

Petitioner

Thorpe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Housing Authority

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 670 (1967)

Argued

Tuesday, March 21, 1967

Decided

Monday, April 17, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Woodwork Manufacturers v. NLRB

Wed, 18 Jan 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

110

Petitioner

Woodwork Manufacturers

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Consolidation

No. 111

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 612 (1967)

Argued

January 18-19, 1967

Decided

Monday, April 17, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co.

Tue, 14 Feb 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

214

Petitioner

Fleischmann Distilling Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maier Brewing Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 714 (1967)

Argued

Tuesday, February 14, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 8, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Maier Brewing Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 1117

None

Neely v. Eby Construction Co.

Mon, 16 Jan 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Neely

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Eby Construction Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 317 (1967)

Argued

Monday, January 16, 1967

Decided

Monday, March 20, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Eby Construction Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 7: Seventh Amendment

None

Marchetti v. United States

Tue, 17 Jan 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Marchetti

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 39 (1968)

Argued

January 17-18, 1967

Reargued:

Tuesday, October 10, 1967

Decided

Monday, January 29, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Utah Pie Co. v. Continental Baking

Tue, 17 Jan 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Utah Pie Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Continental Baking

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 685 (1967)

Argued

Tuesday, January 17, 1967

Decided

Monday, April 24, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Utah Pie Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

First Nat. Bank v. Walker Bank

Mon, 07 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

First Nat. Bank

Respondent

Walker Bank

Consolidation

No. 73

No. 88

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 252 (1966)

Argued

November 7-8, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Walker Bank, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 36

None

Toilet Goods Assn. v. Gardner

Mon, 16 Jan 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

336

Petitioner

Toilet Goods Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gardner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 158 (1967)

Argued

Monday, January 16, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Gardner, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic, and related statutes

None

Sailors v. Board Of Education

Mon, 17 Apr 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

430

Appellee

Board Of Education

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Sailors

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 105 (1967)

Argued

Monday, April 17, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

American Trucking v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co.

Thu, 13 Apr 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

A., T. & S. F. R. Co.

Respondent

American Trucking

Consolidation

No. 59

No. 60

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 397 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, April 13, 1967, Monday, April 17, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 29, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for American Trucking, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

Mccray v. Illinois

Wed, 11 Jan 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

159

Petitioner

Mccray

Respondent

Illinois

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 300 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1967

Decided

Monday, March 20, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Illinois, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Commissioner v. Estate Of Bosch

Wed, 22 Mar 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

673

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Estate Of Bosch

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 240

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 456 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, March 22, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 5, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Denver & R. G. W. R. Co. v. Trainmen

Wed, 19 Apr 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

794

Petitioner

Denver & R. G. W. R. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Trainmen

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 556 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, April 19, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 5, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Denver & R. G. W. R. Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1391

None

Waldron v. Moore-Mccormack Lines, Inc.

Mon, 13 Mar 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

233

Petitioner

Waldron

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Moore-Mccormack Lines, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 724 (1967)

Argued

Monday, March 13, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 8, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Dombrowski v. Eastland

Mon, 20 Feb 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

118

Petitioner

Dombrowski

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Eastland

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 82 (1967)

Argued

Monday, February 20, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Loving v. Virginia

Mon, 10 Apr 1967 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.

395

Appellant

Virginia

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Loving

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

388 U.S. 1 (1967)

Argued

Monday, April 10, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1967

Advocates

Philip J. Hirschkop (Argued the cause for the appellants pro hac vice, by special leave of Court)

Bernard S. Cohen (Argued the cause for the appellants)

R. D. McIlwaine, III (Argued the cause for the appellee)

William M. Marutani (By special leave of Court, argued the cause for the Japanese American Citizens League, as amicus curiae, urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

In 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia. The Lovings returned to Virginia shortly thereafter. The couple was then charged with violating the state's antimiscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail (the trial judge agreed to suspend the sentence if the Lovings would leave Virginia and not return for 25 years).

Question

Did Virginia's antimiscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."

Long v. District Court Of Iowa

Wed, 09 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Long

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

District Court Of Iowa

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 192 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, November 9, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 5, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Berger v. New York

Thu, 13 Apr 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

615

Petitioner

Berger

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

388 U.S. 41 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, April 13, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Moody v. Flowers

Tue, 18 Apr 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

624

Appellee

Flowers

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Moody

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 491

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 97 (1967)

Argued

Tuesday, April 18, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Gardner v. Toilet Goods Assn.

Mon, 16 Jan 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

438

Petitioner

Gardner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Toilet Goods Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 167 (1967)

Argued

Monday, January 16, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Toilet Goods Assn., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic, and related statutes

None

Houston Contractors Assn. v. NLRB

Thu, 19 Jan 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

206

Petitioner

Houston Contractors Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 413

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 664 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, January 19, 1967

Decided

Monday, April 17, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Illinois C. R. Co. v. Norfolk & W. R. Co.

Tue, 11 Oct 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Norfolk & W. R. Co.

Respondent

Illinois C. R. Co.

Consolidation

No. 17

No. 20

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 57 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, October 11, 1966

Decided

Monday, November 14, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Illinois C. R. Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Clewis v. Texas

Wed, 15 Mar 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

648

Petitioner

Clewis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Texas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 707 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, March 15, 1967

Decided

Monday, April 24, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Chapman v. California

Wed, 07 Dec 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Chapman

Respondent

California

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 18 (1967)

Argued

December 7-8, 1966

Decided

Monday, February 20, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Chapman, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: harmless error

None

Parker v. Gladden

Wed, 09 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Parker

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gladden

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 363 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, November 9, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Boutilier v. Immigration Service

Tue, 14 Mar 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

440

Petitioner

Boutilier

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Immigration Service

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 118 (1967)

Argued

Tuesday, March 14, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Immigration Service, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Walker v. Birmingham

Mon, 13 Mar 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Birmingham City Council

710 North 20th Street Birmingham AL 35203

Birmingham, AL 35203

United States

33° 31' 12.0936" N, 86° 48' 39.1284" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

249

Petitioner

Walker

Respondent

Birmingham

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

388 U.S. 307 (1967)

Argued

March 13-14, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1967

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (By special leave of the Court, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging reversal)

J. M. Breckenridge (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Earl McBee (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Jack Greenberg (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Civil rights activists who planned to march on Good Friday and Easter were denied parade permits from the city. When they indicated their intention to march anyway, Birmingham obtained an injunction from a state court which ordered them to refrain from demonstrating. Marchers who defied the order, including Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ralph Abernathy, were arrested.

Question

Did the injunction violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion

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

The Court upheld the arrests since Walker failed to use proper judicial procedures to test the injunction's validity. Even though, Justice Stewart admitted, the injunction seemed broad and vague, and the marchers may not have enjoyed due process when applying for the permit originally, simply disobeying the injunction was illegitimate as "no man can be judge in his own case . . . however righteous his motives."

NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co.

Wed, 15 Mar 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

216

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

388 U.S. 175 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, March 15, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Berenyi v. Immigration Director

Mon, 05 Dec 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Berenyi

Respondent

Immigration Director

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 630 (1967)

Argued

December 5-6, 1966

Decided

Monday, January 23, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Immigration Director, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Redrup v. New York

Mon, 10 Oct 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Redrup

Respondent

New York

Consolidation

No. 16

No. 50

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 767 (1967)

Argued

October 10-11, 1966

Decided

Monday, May 8, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Redrup, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

United States v. Fabrizio

Mon, 07 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Fabrizio

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 263 (1966)

Argued

Monday, November 7, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1953

None

Prima Paint v. Flood & Conklin

Thu, 16 Mar 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

343

Petitioner

Prima Paint

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Flood & Conklin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

388 U.S. 395 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, March 16, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Flood & Conklin, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 9 U.S.C. 1

None

Warden v. Hayden

Wed, 12 Apr 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

480

Petitioner

Warden

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hayden

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 294 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, April 12, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 29, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Commissioner v. Stidger

Mon, 16 Jan 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

173

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stidger

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 287 (1967)

Argued

Monday, January 16, 1967

Decided

Monday, March 20, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

FPC v. United Gas Pipe Line Co.

Wed, 11 Jan 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

127

Petitioner

Federal Power Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United Gas Pipe Line Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 128

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 237 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1967

Decided

Monday, March 13, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for FPC, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Natural Gas, or Natural Gas Policy Acts

None

Keyishian v. Board Of Regents

Thu, 17 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

105

Appellee

Board Of Regents

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Keyishian

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 589 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, November 17, 1966

Decided

Monday, January 23, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co.

Wed, 19 Apr 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

A., T. & S. F. R. Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Chicago & N. W. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 23

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 326 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, April 19, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 29, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Honda v. Clark

Tue, 14 Feb 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

164

Petitioner

Honda

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Clark

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 484 (1967)

Argued

Tuesday, February 14, 1967

Decided

Monday, April 10, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Honda, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 50 U.S.C. 34

None

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire

Tue, 14 Feb 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

391

Petitioner

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

Respondent

Tashire

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 523 (1967)

Argued

February 14-15, 1967

Decided

Monday, April 10, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1335

None

Immigration Service v. Errico

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Immigration Service

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Errico

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 91

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 214 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, October 20, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Errico, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

United States v. Wade

Thu, 16 Feb 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

334

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wade

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

388 U.S. 218 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, February 16, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Udall v. FPC

Tue, 11 Apr 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

463

Petitioner

Udall

Respondent

Federal Power Commission

Consolidation

No. 462

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 428 (1967)

Argued

April 11-12, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 5, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Udall, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Power

None

Cascade Nat. Gas v. El Paso Nat. Gas

Thu, 12 Jan 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

El Paso Nat. Gas

Respondent

Cascade Nat. Gas

Consolidation

No. 5

No. 24

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 129 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, January 12, 1967

Decided

Monday, February 27, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Cascade Nat. Gas, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Bond v. Floyd

Thu, 10 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Floyd

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Bond

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 116 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, November 10, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 5, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Grosso v. United States

Tue, 17 Jan 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Grosso

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 62 (1968)

Argued

January 17-18, 1967

Reargued:

October 10-11, 1967

Decided

Monday, January 29, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Demko

Tue, 08 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Demko

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 149 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, November 8, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 5, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 4126

None

United States v. Laub

Wed, 16 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

176

Appellee

Laub

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 475 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, November 16, 1966

Decided

Tuesday, January 10, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Laub, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers

Wed, 19 Apr 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

781

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Great Dane Trailers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

388 U.S. 26 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, April 19, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for NLRB, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

United States v. Robel

Mon, 14 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Robel

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

389 U.S. 258 (1967)

Argued

Monday, November 14, 1966

Reargued:

Monday, October 9, 1967

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Robel, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Smith, Subversive Activities Control, Communist Control, or other similar federal legislation except the Internal Security Act (qv.)

None

Railroad Trans. Service v. Chicago

Mon, 13 Feb 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

209

Petitioner

Railroad Trans. Service

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chicago

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 351 (1967)

Argued

Monday, February 13, 1967

Decided

Monday, March 27, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Railroad Trans. Service, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Dusch v. Davis

Tue, 18 Apr 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

724

Appellee

Davis

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Dusch

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 112 (1967)

Argued

Tuesday, April 18, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Pierson v. Ray

Wed, 11 Jan 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Pierson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ray

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 94

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 547 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1967

Decided

Tuesday, April 11, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Ray, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Cooper v. California

Thu, 08 Dec 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

103

Petitioner

Cooper

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 58 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, December 8, 1966

Decided

Monday, February 20, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for California, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Spevack v. Klein

Mon, 07 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Samuel Spevack's Office

66 Court Street

Brooklyn, NY

United States

40° 41' 30.606" N, 73° 59' 29.346" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Samuel Spevack

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Solomon A. Klein

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 511 (1967)

Argued

Monday, November 7, 1966

Decided

Monday, January 16, 1967

Advocates

Lawrence J. Latto (for the petitioner)

Solomon A. Klein (respondent pro se)

Facts of the Case

The New York Bar charged Samuel Spevack, an attorney from New York, with professional misconduct because he refused to produce financial records and testify at a judicial inquiry. In his defense, Spevack claimed his constitutional right against self-incrimination, and stated that the records and testimony would tend to incriminate him. The New York appellate court rejected Spevack’s defense and ordered Spevack disbarred, holding that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was not available to attorneys against states.

Question

Is the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment applicable against states when the person claiming the right against self-incrimination is an attorney?

Conclusion

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

Yes. Justice William O. Douglas wrote the plurality opinion of the Court reversing the lower court’s decision. Writing for himself and three other justices, Douglas maintained that the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment is applicable against states because the Fourteenth Amendment prevents states from interfering with the rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, including the right to remain silent without suffering a penalty. This protection extends to lawyers, and Spevack should have been able to assert his right against self-incrimination without being penalized by the dishonor of disbarment and the deprivation of his livelihood.

Justice Abe Fortas voted with the majority but wrote a special concurrence distinguishing between a lawyer's right to remain silent, which he acknowledged, and that of a public employee, who could be questioned about his official duties without the self-incrimination protection.

Justice John Marshall Harlan II dissented, joined by Justices Tom Clark and Potter Stewart. Harlan wrote that the State of New York had the authority to impose valid conditions on the authority to practice law and to assess qualifications for continued practice. He concluded that the plurality improperly invalidated New York’s rules by reversing Spevack’s disbarment and determined that protection from disbarment for failure to provide information to a judicial inquiry went beyond the scope of the right against self-incrimination.

Lewis v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Lewis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 206 (1966)

Argued

Monday, October 17, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Vaca v. Sipes

Thu, 17 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

114

Petitioner

Vaca

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sipes

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 171 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, November 17, 1966

Decided

Monday, February 27, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Canada Packers v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., et al

Tue, 08 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Canada Packers

Respondent

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 182 (1966)

Argued

November 8-9, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 5, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bostick v. South Carolina

Mon, 20 Mar 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

647

Petitioner

Bostick

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

South Carolina

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 479 (1967)

Argued

Monday, March 20, 1967

Decided

Monday, March 27, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Switzerland Assn. v. Horne's Market

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Switzerland Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Horne's Market

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 23 (1966)

Argued

Monday, October 17, 1966

Decided

Monday, November 7, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Horne's Market, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1292

None

Nowakowski v. Maroney

Mon, 13 Mar 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

222

Petitioner

Nowakowski

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maroney

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 542 (1967)

Argued

Monday, March 13, 1967

Decided

Monday, April 10, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co.

Mon, 14 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Acme Industrial Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 432 (1967)

Argued

Monday, November 14, 1966

Decided

Monday, January 9, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Swann v. Adams

Tue, 06 Dec 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

136

Appellee

Adams

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Swann

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 440 (1967)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1966

Decided

Monday, January 9, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Swann, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Cichos v. Indiana

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Cichos

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Indiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 76 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, October 19, 1966

Decided

Monday, November 14, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Indiana, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Sims v. Georgia

Tue, 06 Dec 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

251

Petitioner

Sims

Respondent

Georgia

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 538 (1967)

Argued

December 6-7, 1966

Decided

Monday, January 23, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Jackson v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co.

Wed, 12 Apr 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

575

Petitioner

Jackson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lykes Bros. S. S. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 731 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, April 12, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 8, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Travis v. United States

Tue, 15 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Travis

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 491 (1967)

Argued

November 15-16, 1966

Decided

Tuesday, January 10, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Travis, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner

Mon, 16 Jan 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Abbott Laboratories

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gardner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 136 (1967)

Argued

Monday, January 16, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Abbott Laboratories, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic, and related statutes

None

Northeastern Nat. Bank v. U.S.

Mon, 20 Mar 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

637

Petitioner

Northeastern Nat. Bank

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 213 (1967)

Argued

Monday, March 20, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Northeastern Nat. Bank, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Stovall v. Denno

Thu, 16 Feb 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

254

Petitioner

Stovall

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Denno

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

388 U.S. 293 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, February 16, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Denno, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

United States v. Sealy, Inc.

Thu, 20 Apr 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Sealy, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

388 U.S. 350 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, April 20, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

United States v. First City Nat. Bank

Mon, 20 Feb 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

914

Petitioner

First City Nat. Bank

Respondent

United States

Consolidation

No. 972

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 361 (1967)

Argued

February 20-21, 1967

Decided

Monday, March 27, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 1828

None

Washington v. Texas

Wed, 15 Mar 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

649

Petitioner

Washington

Respondent

Texas

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

388 U.S. 14 (1967)

Argued

March 15-16, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United Gas Pipe Line v. FPC

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United Gas Pipe Line

Respondent

Federal Power Commission

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 83 (1966)

Argued

October 19-20, 1966

Decided

Monday, November 14, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for FPC, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Natural Gas, or Natural Gas Policy Acts

None

Anders v. State Of Cal.

Tue, 14 Mar 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Anders

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

State Of Cal.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Argued

Tuesday, March 14, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 8, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Dept. Of Employment v. U.S.

Tue, 15 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

U.S.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Dept. Of Employment

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 355 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, November 15, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for U.S., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2281

None

Walker v. Southern R. Co.

Thu, 10 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Walker

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Southern R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 196 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, November 10, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 5, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Walker, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Railway Labor

None

Ftc v. Jantzen, Inc.

Tue, 14 Feb 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

310

Petitioner

Ftc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jantzen, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 228 (1967)

Argued

Tuesday, February 14, 1967

Decided

Monday, March 13, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bank Of Marin v. England

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Bank Of Marin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

England

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 99 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, October 20, 1966

Decided

Monday, November 21, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ftc v. Procter & Gamble Co.

Mon, 13 Feb 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

342

Petitioner

Ftc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Procter & Gamble Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 568 (1967)

Argued

Monday, February 13, 1967

Decided

Monday, April 10, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Miller v. Pate

Wed, 11 Jan 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

250

Petitioner

Miller

Respondent

Pate

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 1 (1967)

Argued

January 11-12, 1967

Decided

Monday, February 13, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Transportation Union v. U. P. R. Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Transportation Union

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U. P. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 157 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, October 19, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 5, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for U. P. R. Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Railway Labor

None

Gilbert v. California

Wed, 15 Feb 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

223

Petitioner

Gilbert

Respondent

California

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

388 U.S. 263 (1967)

Argued

February 15-16, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Gilbert, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts

Thu, 23 Feb 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Legion Field

400 Graymont Ave Birmingham AL 35204

Birmingham, AL 35204

United States

33° 30' 41.04" N, 86° 50' 34.08" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Curtis Publishing Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wallace Butts

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 150, Associated Press v. Walker

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

388 U.S. 130 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, February 23, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1967

Advocates

Herbert Wechsler (argued the cause for the petitioner in No. 37)

Allen E. Lockerman (argued the cause for the respondent in No. 37)

William H. Schroder (argued the cause for the respondent in No. 37)

William P. Rogers (argued the cause for the petitioner in No. 150)

Clyde J. Watts (argued the cause for the respondent in No. 150)

Facts of the Case

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) the Court held that public officials in libel cases must show that a statement was made "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." These two cases concern libel as it pertains to public figures who are not public officials. Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts concerns an article published in the March 23, 1963 edition of The Saturday Evening Post alleging that former University of Georgia football coach Wallace Butts conspired with University of Alabama coach Paul "Bear" Bryant to fix a 1962 football game in Alabama's favor. The article's source was George Burnett, an Atlanta insurance salesman who had allegedly overheard a telephone conversation between the coaches. Butts brought and won a libel suit against Curtis Publishing, owner of the periodical. Soon after the Court's ruling in New York Times, Curtis moved for a new trial. The trial judge rejected the argument because Butts was not a public official. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judge's decision on the basis that Curtis had waived any constitutional challenges by not raising such questions at trial. Associated Press v. Walker concerns dispatch reports of rioting that occurred on the campus of the University of Mississippi on September 30, 1962. The dispatches, authored by a correspondent on the scene, reported that Edwin A. Walker, a private citizen and political activist, had personally led a violent crowd attempting to prevent federal marshals from enforcing the court- ordered enrollment of an African-American. Walker denied the report, and filed a libel suit in the state courts of Texas. A jury found in Walker's favor, but the judge in the case refused to award punitive damages, finding that there was no malicious intent. The judge also specifically noted that New York Times was inapplicable. On appeal, the Texas Court of Civil Appeals agreed. The Supreme Court of Texas declined to hear the case.

Question

In light of the Court's ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, were the allegations made against Butts and Walker libelous?

Conclusion

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

In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice John M. Harlan, the Court noted significant differences between the circumstances of these cases and those of New York Times. In particular, criticism of Butts or Walker, unlike a government official, could not be conflated with criticism of public policy. Thus, the Court reasoned that public figures who are not public officials may recover damages for libel stemming from false reports based on "highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers." The Court concluded that Curtis' investigation of its allegations against Butts failed to meet this standard. The company printed a questionably reliable source's allegations without any attempt to verify his claims, and the story in question was not a pressing event or immediately newsworthy. The Court thus affirmed the lower courts' denial of a retrial. The situation in Butts contrasted with Walker, where the AP relied on a correspondent on the scene of an event that was immediately newsworthy. The Court thus denied Walker's claims to damages.

Fortson v. Morris

Mon, 05 Dec 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

800

Appellee

Morris

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Fortson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 231 (1966)

Argued

Monday, December 5, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Fortson, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Denver & R. G. W. R. Co. v. U.S.

Thu, 16 Mar 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

305

Appellee

U.S.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Denver & R. G. W. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 485 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, March 16, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 5, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Denver & R. G. W. R. Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

Watkins v. Conway

Wed, 09 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Conway

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Watkins

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 188 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, November 9, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 5, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Conway, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause

None

Levin v. Mississippi River Corp.

Thu, 19 Jan 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

352

Petitioner

Levin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mississippi River Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 359

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 162 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, January 19, 1967

Decided

Monday, February 27, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lassen v. Arizona Highway Dept.

Wed, 16 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Lassen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arizona Highway Dept.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 458 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, November 16, 1966

Decided

Tuesday, January 10, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Lassen, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 36 Stat. 557

None

NLRB v. C & C Plywood Corp.

Tue, 15 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

C & C Plywood Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 421 (1967)

Argued

Tuesday, November 15, 1966

Decided

Monday, January 9, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Woodby v. Immigration Service

Wed, 16 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Woodby

Respondent

Immigration Service

Consolidation

No. 80

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 276 (1966)

Argued

November 16-17, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Woodby, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Afroyim v. Rusk

Mon, 20 Feb 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

456

Petitioner

Afroyim

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rusk

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 253 (1967)

Argued

Monday, February 20, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 29, 1967

Advocates

Edward J. Ennis (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Charles Gordon (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

After immigrating to the United States from Poland in 1912, Beys Afroyim became a naturalized American citizen in 1926. In 1950, Afroyim went to Israel where he voted in that country's 1951 governmental elections. In 1960, Afroyim applied for renewal a of his American passport. The State Department informed him that he had forfeited his American citizenship by virtue of Section 401(e) of the 1940 Nationality Act which stipulates that citizens of the United States shall "lose" their citizenship upon voting in a foreign state's political elections. Afroyim challenged the constitutionality of Section 401(e). On appeal from a district court's summary judgment favoring Secretary of State Dean Rusk, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted Afroyim certiorari.

Question

Does Section 401(e) of the 1940 Nationality Act, revoking U.S. citizenship to persons who vote in other countries' elections, violate either the Fifth Amendment right to Due Process or the Fourteenth Amendment, under which naturalized citizens are granted national citizenship?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Afroyim, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Citizenship Clause

Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, overruling Perez v. Brownell (356 US 44), the Court held that Congress has no general power to revoke American citizenship without consent. Noting the special bond between Americans and their government, a bond that protects every citizen against all manner of destruction of their rights, the Court held that only citizens themselves may voluntarily relinquish their citizenship. This sacred principle applies equally to natural and naturalized citizens. As such, Section 401(e) violated both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Whitus v. Georgia

Wed, 07 Dec 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

650

Petitioner

Whitus

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Georgia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 253

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 545 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, December 7, 1966

Decided

Monday, January 23, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Acme Process Co.

Wed, 09 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Acme Process Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 138 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, November 9, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 5, 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. 51

None

Ftc v. Universal-Rundle Corp.

Mon, 13 Mar 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

101

Petitioner

Ftc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Universal-Rundle Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 244 (1967)

Argued

Monday, March 13, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 29, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Osborn v. United States

Wed, 12 Oct 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Osborn

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 323 (1966)

Argued

October 12-13, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Hoffa v. United States

Thu, 13 Oct 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Hoffa

Respondent

United States

Consolidation

No. 33

No. 34

No. 35

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 293 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, October 13, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department Of Revenue Of State Of

Thu, 23 Feb 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

241

Appellee

Department Of Revenue Of State Of

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

National Bellas Hess, Inc.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 753 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, February 23, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 8, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for National Bellas Hess, Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

U.S. v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co.

Thu, 20 Apr 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Arnold, Schwinn & Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

U.S.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

388 U.S. 365 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, April 20, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for U.S., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Specht v. Patterson

Tue, 21 Mar 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

831

Petitioner

Specht

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Patterson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 605 (1967)

Argued

Tuesday, March 21, 1967

Decided

Tuesday, April 11, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Klopfer v. North Carolina

Thu, 08 Dec 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

100

Petitioner

Klopfer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

North Carolina

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 213 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, December 8, 1966

Decided

Monday, March 13, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Klopfer, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Speedy Trial

None

Reitman v. Mulkey

Mon, 20 Mar 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

483

Petitioner

Reitman

Respondent

Mulkey

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 369 (1967)

Argued

March 20-21, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 29, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mulkey, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Heider, Administrator v. Michigan Sugar Co.

Thu, 08 Dec 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Heider, Administrator

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Michigan Sugar Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 362 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, December 8, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Michigan Sugar Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Adderley v. Florida

Tue, 18 Oct 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Leon County Jailhouse

2825 Municipal Way Tallahassee FL 32304

Tallahassee, FL 32304

United States

30° 26' 23.3628" N, 84° 20' 7.1736" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Adderley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 39 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, October 18, 1966

Decided

Monday, November 14, 1966

Facts of the Case

Harriet Louise Adderley and a group of approximately 200 others assembled in a non-public jail driveway to protest the arrests of fellow students and the state and local policies of racial segregation which included segregation in jails. Adderley and thirty-one others were convicted in a Florida court on a charge of "trespass with a malicious and mischievous intent" for their refusal to leave the driveway when requested to do so.

Question

Were the petitioners denied their rights of free speech, assembly, petition, due process of law and equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

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

The Court found that there were no constitutional violations in this case. The language of the Florida statute was clearly defined and applied, argued Justice Black, which prevented it from imposing broad infringements on speech and expression rights. Furthermore, since the sheriff acted to maintain access to the jail house and not because he "objected to what was being sung . . . or disagreed with the objectives of the protest," there were no First Amendment violations. Black concluded that the state does have the power to control its own property for lawful, nondiscriminatory purposes.

Spencer v. Texas

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Texas

Respondent

Spencer

Consolidation

No. 69

No. 70

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 554 (1967)

Argued

October 17-18, 1966

Decided

Monday, January 23, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

In re Gault

Tue, 06 Dec 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Gila County Youth Detention Center

1425 E. South St Globe AZ 85501

Globe, AZ 85501

United States

33° 23' 36.7476" N, 110° 46' 22.5768" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

116

Appellant

Gault

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Arizona

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 1 (1967)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1966

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1967

Advocates

Frank A. Parks (Argued the cause for the appellee, pro hac vice, by special leave of the Court)

Norman Dorsen (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Merritt W. Green (Argued the cause for the Ohio Association of Juvenile Court Judges, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance)

Facts of the Case

Gerald Francis Gault, fifteen years old, was taken into custody for allegedly making an obscene phone call. Gault had previously been placed on probation. The police did not leave notice with Gault's parents, who were at work, when the youth was arrested. After proceedings before a juvenile court judge, Gault was committed to the State Industrial School until he reached the age of 21.

Question

Were the procedures used to commit Gault constitutionally legitimate under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

No. The proceedings of the Juvenile Court failed to comply with the Constitution. The Court held that the proceedings for juveniles had to comply with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. These requirements included adequate notice of charges, notification of both the parents and the child of the juvenile's right to counsel, opportunity for confrontation and cross- examination at the hearings, and adequate safeguards against self- incrimination. The Court found that the procedures used in Gault's case met none of these requirements.

Entsminger v. State Of Iowa

Wed, 15 Mar 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

252

Petitioner

Entsminger

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

State Of Iowa

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 748 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, March 15, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 8, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Entsminger, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Crown Coat Front Co. v. U.S.

Mon, 13 Feb 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

371

Petitioner

Crown Coat Front Co.

Respondent

U.S.

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 503 (1967)

Argued

February 13-14, 1967

Decided

Monday, April 10, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Crown Coat Front Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2401

None

Garrity v. New Jersey

Thu, 10 Nov 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Garrity

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New Jersey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 493 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, November 10, 1966

Decided

Monday, January 16, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Giles v. Maryland

Wed, 12 Oct 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Giles

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maryland

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 66 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, October 12, 1966

Decided

Monday, February 20, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

See v. City Of Seattle

Wed, 15 Feb 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

180

Appellee

City Of Seattle

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

See

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 541 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, February 15, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 5, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Camara v. Municipal Court

Wed, 15 Feb 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Municipal Court

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Camara

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 523 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, February 15, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 5, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

SEC v. United Benefit Life Ins. Co.

Mon, 10 Apr 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

428

Petitioner

Securities and Exchange Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United Benefit Life Ins. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 202 (1967)

Argued

Monday, April 10, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for SEC, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

B. & O. Railroad Co. v. United States

Mon, 09 Jan 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

642

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

B. & O. Railroad Co.

Consolidation

No. 680

No. 691

No. 813

No. 814

No. 815

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 372 (1967)

Argued

January 9-10, 1967

Decided

Monday, March 27, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen

mgruhn — Mon, 10 Oct 1966 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

220

Petitioner

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 20 (1966)

Argued

Monday, October 10, 1966

Decided

Monday, October 24, 1966

Advocates

Paul A. Porter (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Dennis G. Lyons (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Neal Rutledge (Argued the cause for respondents)

Allan Milledge (Argued the cause for respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Brotherhood of Railway Trainment, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: None

None

Turner v. New York

mgruhn — Wed, 12 Apr 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

399

Petitioner

Turner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 773 (1967)

Argued

April 12-13, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 8, 1967

Advocates

Osmond K. Fraenkel (for petitioners)

H. Richard Uviller (for respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None