Cases - 1967 term

United States v. United Shoe Corp.

Mon, 01 Apr 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

597

Appellee

United Shoe Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

391 U.S. 244 (1968)

Argued

Monday, April 1, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Bruton v. United States

Mon, 11 Mar 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

705

Petitioner

Bruton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

391 U.S. 123 (1968)

Argued

Monday, March 11, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Bruton, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

None

NLRB v. Fleetwood Trailer Co.

Wed, 08 Nov 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fleetwood Trailer Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

389 U.S. 375 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, November 8, 1967

Decided

Monday, December 18, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Schneider v. Smith

Tue, 12 Dec 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

196

Petitioner

Smith

Respondent

Schneider

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 17 (1968)

Argued

December 12-13, 1967

Decided

Tuesday, January 16, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Albrecht v. Herald Co.

Thu, 09 Nov 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Albrecht

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Herald Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 145 (1968)

Argued

Thursday, November 9, 1967

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

NLRB v. Marine Workers

Tue, 30 Apr 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

796

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent

Marine Workers

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

391 U.S. 418 (1968)

Argued

Tuesday, April 30, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 27, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Johnson

Thu, 14 Mar 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

482

Appellee

Johnson

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 563 (1968)

Argued

Thursday, March 14, 1968

Decided

Monday, April 8, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II

None

Bloom v. Illinois

Tue, 16 Jan 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Bloom

Respondent

Illinois

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

391 U.S. 194 (1968)

Argued

January 16-17, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Bloom, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Trial By Jury

None

Levy v. Louisiana

Wed, 27 Mar 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

508

Appellee

Louisiana

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Levy

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

391 U.S. 68 (1968)

Argued

Wednesday, March 27, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Zschernig v. Miller

Tue, 07 Nov 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Miller

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Zschernig

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

389 U.S. 429 (1968)

Argued

Tuesday, November 7, 1967

Decided

Monday, January 15, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Zschernig, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 2, Section 1: Executive Power

None

Hanover Shoe v. United Shoe Mach.

Tue, 05 Mar 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

335

Petitioner

Hanover Shoe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United Shoe Mach.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 463

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

392 U.S. 481 (1968)

Argued

Tuesday, March 5, 1968

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Hanover Shoe, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Shapiro v. Thompson

Wed, 01 May 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Connecticut Welfare Department

25 Sigourney Street Hartford CT 06106

Hartford, CT 06106

United States

41° 45' 50.6556" N, 72° 41' 37.8312" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Thompson

Respondent

Shapiro

Consolidation

Washington v. Legrant, No. 33

Reynolds v. Smith, No. 34

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 618 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, May 1, 1968

Reargued:

October 23-24, 1968

Decided

Monday, April 21, 1969

Advocates

Archibald Cox (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Francis J. MacGregor (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Brian L. Hollander (As <i>pro hac vice</i>, argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Thompson was a pregnant, nineteen-year-old mother of one child who applied for assistance under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program in Connecticut after having recently moved there from Massachusetts. Connecticut denied her aid since she did not satisfy the state's one-year residency requirement. This case was decided together with Washington v. Legrant and Reynolds v. Smith. In Washington, three people applied for and were denied AFDC aid on the ground that they had not resided in the District of Columbia for one year immediately preceding the filing of their application In Reynolds, two appellees, Smith and Foster, were denied AFDC aid on the sole ground that they had not been residents of Pennsylvania for at least a year prior to their applications as required by a Pennsylvania Welfare Code.

Question

Does the conditioning of AFDC aid on various residency requirements violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Conclusion

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

Yes. The Court held that since the regulation touched "on the fundamental right of interstate movement," it must promote a compelling state interest. Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Washington DC, all failed to advance any compelling administrative or social reasons for their requirements. The goal of simply preventing indigents from moving to these states was constitutionally impermissible, argued Justice Brennan, given the value the United States has historically placed on the freedom to travel.

Lee v. Florida

Thu, 02 May 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

174

Petitioner

Lee

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

392 U.S. 378 (1968)

Argued

Thursday, May 2, 1968

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Lee, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Communication Act of 1934

None

St. Amant v. Thompson

Thu, 04 Apr 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

517

Petitioner

St. Amant

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thompson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 727 (1968)

Argued

Thursday, April 4, 1968

Decided

Monday, April 29, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for St. Amant, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Food Employees v. Logan Plaza

Thu, 14 Mar 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

478

Petitioner

Food Employees

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Logan Plaza

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

391 U.S. 308 (1968)

Argued

Thursday, March 14, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Flast v. Cohen

Tue, 12 Mar 1968 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.

416

Appellee

Cohen

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Flast

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

392 U.S. 83 (1968)

Argued

Tuesday, March 12, 1968

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1968

Advocates

Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (Argued the cause for Americans for Public Schools et al., as amici curiae, urging reversal)

Leo Pfeffer (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Erwin N. Griswold (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

Florence Flast and a group of taxpayers challenged federal legislation that financed the purchase of secular textbooks for use in religious schools. Flast argued that such use of tax money violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A district court held that the federal courts should defer when confronted with taxpayer suits directed against federal spending programs.

Question

Did Flast, as a taxpayer, have standing to sue the government's spending program?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Flast, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court rejected the government's argument that the constitutional scheme of separation of powers barred taxpayer suits against federal taxing and spending programs. In order to prove a "requisite personal stake" in such cases, taxpayers had to 1) establish a logical link between their status as taxpayers and the type of legislative enactment attacked, and 2) show the challenged enactment exceeded specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of Congressional taxing and spending power. The Court held that Flast had met both parts of the test.

Avery v. Midland County

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Avery

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Midland County

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 474 (1968)

Argued

Tuesday, November 14, 1967

Decided

Monday, April 1, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Avery, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Commissioner v. Gordon

Thu, 04 Apr 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

760

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gordon

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 781

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

391 U.S. 83 (1968)

Argued

Thursday, April 4, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Commissioner, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Maryland v. Wirtz

Tue, 23 Apr 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

742

Appellee

Wirtz

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Maryland

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

392 U.S. 183 (1968)

Argued

Tuesday, April 23, 1968

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Wirtz, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Biggers v. Tennessee

Mon, 15 Jan 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

237

Petitioner

Biggers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tennessee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 404 (1968)

Argued

Monday, January 15, 1968

Decided

Monday, March 18, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Green v. County School Board

Wed, 03 Apr 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

695

Petitioner

Green

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

County School Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

391 U.S. 430 (1968)

Argued

Wednesday, April 3, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 27, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Terry v. Ohio

Tue, 12 Dec 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Street Corner

East 14th Street and Euclid Avenue Cleveland OH 44115

Cleveland, OH 44115

United States

41° 30' 3.4272" N, 81° 40' 54.4512" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Terry

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ohio

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

392 U.S. 1 (1968)

Argued

Tuesday, December 12, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1968

Advocates

Reuben M. Payne (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Louis Stokes (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Terry and two other men were observed by a plain clothes policeman in what the officer believed to be "casing a job, a stick-up." The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail.

Question

Was the search and seizure of Terry and the other men in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. Attempting to focus narrowly on the facts of this particular case, the Court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior." The Court found that the searches undertaken were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer's safety incident to the investigation.

United States v. Third Nat. Bank

Mon, 11 Dec 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Third Nat. Bank

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 171 (1968)

Argued

Monday, December 11, 1967

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 1828

None

Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, v. Lisi

Mon, 11 Mar 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane,

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lisi

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 455 (1968)

Argued

Monday, March 11, 1968

Decided

Monday, March 25, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Habig

Wed, 17 Jan 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

107

Appellee

Habig

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 222 (1968)

Argued

Wednesday, January 17, 1968

Decided

Tuesday, March 5, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Peyton v. Rowe

Wed, 27 Mar 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

802

Petitioner

Peyton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rowe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

391 U.S. 54 (1968)

Argued

Wednesday, March 27, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Rowe, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Wyandotte Co. v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Wyandotte Co.

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

389 U.S. 191 (1967)

Argued

October 16-17, 1967

Decided

Monday, December 4, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 33 U.S.C. 401

None

Lee v. Washington

Tue, 07 Nov 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Washington

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lee

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 333 (1968)

Argued

Tuesday, November 7, 1967

Decided

Monday, March 11, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Zwickler v. Koota

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Koota

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Zwickler

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

389 U.S. 241 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, October 12, 1967

Decided

Tuesday, December 5, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Zwickler, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Fmc v. Svenska Amerika Linien

Thu, 25 Jan 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

257

Petitioner

Fmc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Svenska Amerika Linien

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 258

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 238 (1968)

Argued

Thursday, January 25, 1968

Decided

Wednesday, March 6, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Fmc, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 46 U.S.C. 814

None

Sibron v. New York

Mon, 11 Dec 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

New York

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Sibron

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

Peters v. New York, No. 74

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

392 U.S. 40 (1968)

Argued

December 11-12, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1968

Advocates

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

Michael Juviler (Argued the cause for the District Attorney of New York County, as amicus curiae)

Kalman Finkel (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Gretchen White Oberman (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Facts of the Case

After following Nelson Sibron for several hours, and observing him talking with several narcotics addicts, NYC police officer Anthony Martinez stopped Sibron and questioned him. When Martinez said: "You know what I am after," Sibron began reaching into his pocket. Simultaneously, Martinez thrust his hand into Sibron's pocket and pulled out several heroin envelopes. Following his arrest for drug trafficking, Sibron sought to suppress the heroin evidence as the product of an unconstitutional stop-and-frisk search. When the Criminal Court of New York City denied his motion, Sibron appealed but suffered adverse rulings in the New York State appellate courts. On appeal, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard Sibron's case together with a related case, Peters v. New York. John Peters appealed his arrest and conviction for intent to commit burglary after a stop-and-frisk search of his person revealed burglary tools.

Question

Do the broad search powers conferred on New York State police officers under the State's "stop-and-frisk" law violate the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure protections?

Conclusion

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

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court began by noting that although states may grant police officers great latitude in making arrests, all search and seizures are subject to constitutional limitations. In Sibron's case, the Court noted that officer Martinez never actually heard any of the conversations between Sibron and the narcotics addicts. As such, the inference that Sibron engaged in narcotics trafficking merely because he spoke with drug addicts did not constitute probably cause for a warrantless search. Moreover, Martinez's actions could not be justified as a self-protective search for weapons since he admitted that he had no reason to suspect Sibron of concealment. With respect to Peters, the Court upheld his conviction since it flowed from a lawful stop-and-frisk search. The arresting officer observed Peters prowling furtively in a building hallway and had to chase him down before capture. Such suspicious conduct justified the ensuing stop-and-frisk search of Peter's person that, in turn, revealed the incriminating burglar tools.

Whitehill v. Elkins

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Elkins

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Whitehill

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

389 U.S. 54 (1967)

Argued

Monday, October 16, 1967

Decided

Thursday, November 16, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Louisiana

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

9 ORIG

Plaintiff

United States

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

389 U.S. 155 (1967)

Argued

Monday, October 9, 1967

Decided

Monday, December 4, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Interstate Circuit v. Dallas

Mon, 15 Jan 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Dallas

Respondent

Interstate Circuit

Consolidation

No. 64

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 676 (1968)

Argued

January 15-16, 1968

Decided

Monday, April 22, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Will v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Will

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

389 U.S. 90 (1967)

Argued

October 17-18, 1967

Decided

Monday, November 13, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Will, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists

Wed, 13 Mar 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

618

Petitioner

Fortnightly Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United Artists

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

392 U.S. 390 (1968)

Argued

Wednesday, March 13, 1968

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Fortnightly Corp., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 17 U.S.C. 1

None

Tcherepnin v. Knight

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

104

Petitioner

Tcherepnin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Knight

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

389 U.S. 332 (1967)

Argued

Monday, November 13, 1967

Decided

Monday, December 18, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Tcherepnin, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Bumper v. North Carolina

Wed, 24 Apr 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

1016

Petitioner

Bumper

Respondent

North Carolina

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

391 U.S. 543 (1968)

Argued

April 24-25, 1968

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Bumper, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 6: Other Sixth Amendment Provisions

None

Alderman v. United States

Thu, 02 May 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

133

Petitioner

Willie Israel Alderman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 11, Ivanov v. United States

No. 197, Butenko v. United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 165 (1969)

Granted

Monday, January 29, 1968

Argued

Thursday, May 2, 1968

Reargued:

Monday, October 14, 1968

Decided

Monday, March 10, 1969

Advocates

Erwin N. Griswold (Solicitor General, Department of Justice, reargued the cause for the United States in No. 133 and argued the cause for the United States in Nos. 11 and 197)

Edward Bennett Williams (reargued for the petitioners in No. 133 and argued the cause for the petitioner in No. 11)

Charles Danzig (by appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the petitioner in No. 197)

Facts of the Case

The petitioners were convicted of illegally passing national defense information to the Soviet Union; their cases were affirmed on appeal. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. In a petition for rehearing, the petitioners claimed that the government had relied on illegally obtained eavesdropping evidence to convict. The Court granted a rehearing and in a per curiam opinion vacated the appellate court judgment and remanded the case to the federal trial court for a rehearing.

The United States sought to modify the Supreme Court's order, urging that the eavesdropping evidence should be reviewed in camera by the trial judge who would then transmit only relevant evidence to the parties. The petitioners argued their opposition to the motion in the 1967 Term. The matter was reargued in the 1968 Term.

Question

(1) Do the petitioners have standing to object to surveillance evidence without prior screening in camera?

(2) Must evidence be excluded from trial if the government unlawfully overheard the petitioners' conversations or conversations occurring on the petitioners' premises, even if they were not present, or did not participate in, the conversations?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Alderman, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

Yes and Yes. In a majority opinion speaking for himself and four other members of the Court, Justice Byron R. White held that "conversations as well as property are excludable from the criminal trial when they are found to be the fruits of an illegal invasion of the home." Moreover, continued White, "surveillance records as to which any petitioner has standing to object should be turned over to him without being screened in camera by the trial judge.

United States v. O'Brien

Wed, 24 Jan 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Location

South Boston Court

535 East Broadway South Boston MA 02127

South Boston, MA 02127

United States

42° 20' 7.818" N, 71° 2' 33.5544" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

232

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

O'Brien

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 233

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

391 U.S. 367 (1968)

Argued

Wednesday, January 24, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 27, 1968

Advocates

Marvin M. Karpatkin (Argued the cause for O'Brien)

Erwin N. Griswold (Argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

David O'Brien burned his draft card at a Boston courthouse. He said he was expressing his opposition to war. He was convicted under a federal law that made the destruction or mutilation of drafts card a crime.

Question

Was the law an unconstitutional infringement of O'Brien's freedom of speech?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

No. The 7-to-1 majority, speaking through Chief Justice Earl Warren, established a test to determine whether governmental regulation involving symbolic speech was justified. The formula examines whether the regulation is unrelated to content and narrowly tailored to achieve the government's interest. "[W]e think it clear," wrote Warren," that a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidential restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is not greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest."

Peoria Tribe v. United States

Mon, 15 Jan 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

219

Petitioner

Peoria Tribe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 468 (1968)

Argued

Monday, January 15, 1968

Decided

Monday, April 1, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Peoria Tribe, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 10 Stat. 1082

None

Monroe v. Board Of Commissioners

Wed, 03 Apr 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

740

Petitioner

Monroe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Board Of Commissioners

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

391 U.S. 450 (1968)

Argued

Wednesday, April 3, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 27, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Miller v. California

Tue, 26 Mar 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Superior Court of San Bernardino County

351 N. Arrowhead Ave. San Bernardino CA 92415

San Bernardino, CA 92415

United States

34° 6' 19.8324" N, 117° 17' 22.6644" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

154

Petitioner

Miller

Respondent

California

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

392 U.S. 616 (1968)

Argued

Tuesday, March 26, 1968

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Wirtz v. Hotel Employees

Mon, 29 Apr 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

891

Petitioner

Wirtz

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hotel Employees

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

391 U.S. 492 (1968)

Argued

Monday, April 29, 1968

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Wirtz, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure

None

Watts v. Seward School Board

Tue, 26 Mar 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

325

Petitioner

Watts

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Seward School Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

391 U.S. 592 (1968)

Argued

Tuesday, March 26, 1968

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

Split Vote

None

Raney v. Board Of Education

Wed, 03 Apr 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

805

Petitioner

Raney

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Board Of Education

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

391 U.S. 443 (1968)

Argued

Wednesday, April 3, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 27, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Sims v. Georgia

Thu, 17 May 2012 14:52:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

678

Petitioner

Sims

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Georgia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

389 U.S. 404 (1967)

Decided

Monday, December 18, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Tax Comm'n.

Thu, 25 Jan 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

324

Appellee

Tax Comm'n.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Norfolk & W. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 317 (1968)

Argued

Thursday, January 25, 1968

Decided

Monday, March 11, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Norfolk & W. R. Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

United States v. Penn-Olin Chemical Co.

Thu, 07 Dec 1967 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Penn-Olin Chemical Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

389 U.S. 308 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, December 7, 1967

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Penn-Olin Chemical Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Case-Swayne Co. v. Sunkist Growers

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Case-Swayne Co.

Respondent

Sunkist Growers

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

389 U.S. 384 (1967)

Argued

October 18-19, 1967

Decided

Monday, December 18, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Case-Swayne Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 7 U.S.C. 291

None