Cases - 1968 term

United States v. Skelly Oil Co.

Wed, 15 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

280

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Skelly Oil Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 678 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, January 15, 1969

Decided

Monday, April 21, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Gaston County v. United States

Wed, 23 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

701

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Gaston County

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 285 (1969)

Argued

April 23-24, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

None

Whyy v. Glassboro

Thu, 17 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Glassboro

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Whyy

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 117 (1968)

Argued

Thursday, October 17, 1968

Decided

Tuesday, November 12, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Zenith Corp. v. Hazeltine

Wed, 22 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Zenith Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hazeltine

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 100 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, January 22, 1969

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Zenith Corp., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Younger v. Harris

Tue, 01 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Location

City of Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA

United States

34° 3' 8.0424" N, 118° 14' 37.266" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Harris

Respondent

Younger

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 37 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, April 1, 1969

Reargued:

Wednesday, April 29, 1970, Monday, November 16, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1971

Advocates

Sam Rosenwein (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Clifford K. Thompson, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellant on the second reargument)

Albert W. Harris, Jr (Argued the cause for the appellant, Reargued the cause for appellant)

A. L. Wirin (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

California's Criminal Syndicalism Act prohibited advocating, teaching, or aiding the commission of a crime or unlawful acts of violence or terrorism. John Harris, a socialist, was indicted under the statute. Harris claimed the law had a "chilling effect" on his freedom of speech. After a California state court upheld Harris' conviction, a federal district court struck down the Act because of vagueness and overbreadth.

Question

Did the federal court, in stopping a prosecution in a state court, violate constitutional principles of federalism?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Younger, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that "settled doctrines" of federalism narrowly confined the availability of injunctive relief against state criminal prosecutions. Specifically, the Court found that a federal court could not properly enjoin enforcement of a statute "solely on the basis of showing that the statute 'on its face' abridges First Amendment rights." The Court referred to "the basic doctrine of equity jurisprudence," under which federal courts were required to show proper respect for state functions and notions of comity.

Davis v. Mississippi

Wed, 26 Feb 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

645

Petitioner

Davis

Respondent

Mississippi

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 721 (1969)

Argued

February 26-27, 1969

Decided

Tuesday, April 22, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Davis, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

United States v. Louisiana

Mon, 14 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

9 ORIG

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Louisiana

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 11 (1969)

Argued

October 14-15, 1968

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Submerged Lands Acts

None

Maxwell v. Bishop

Tue, 04 Mar 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Maxwell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bishop

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

398 U.S. 262 (1970)

Argued

Tuesday, March 4, 1969

Reargued:

Monday, May 4, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Maxwell, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Johnson v. Bennett

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Johnson

Respondent

Bennett

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 253 (1968)

Argued

November 13-14, 1968

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Commonwealth Corp. v. Casualty Co.

Tue, 22 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Commonwealth Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Casualty Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 145 (1968)

Argued

Tuesday, October 22, 1968

Decided

Monday, November 18, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Commonwealth Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 9 U.S.C. 10

None

Gardner v. California

Wed, 20 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Gardner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 367 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, November 20, 1968

Decided

Monday, January 20, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Allen v. State Board Of Elections

Tue, 15 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellant

Allen et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

State Board Of Elections et al.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Consolidation

Fairley et al. v. Patterson, Attorney General of Mississippi, et al., No. 25

Bunton et al. v. Patterson, Attorney General of Mississippi, et al., No. 26

Whitley et al. v. Williams, Governor of Mississippi, et al., No. 36

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 544 (1969)

Argued

October 15-16, 1968

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1969

Advocates

Norman C. Amaker (for the appellants in No. 3)

Armand Derfner (for the appellants in Nos. 25, 26, and 36)

Elliott C. Lichtman (appellants the in Nos. 25, 26, and 36)

R. D. McIlwaine, III (First Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, for the appellees in No. 3)

William A. Allain (Assistant Attorney General of Mississippi, for the appellees in Nos. 25, 26, and 36)

Will S. Wells (Assistant Attorney General of Mississippi, for the appellees in Nos. 25, 26, and 36)

Stephen J. Pollak (Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, as amicus curiae, urging reversal in Nos. 25, 26, and 36)

Facts of the Case

Voters and candidates in Mississippi and Virginia filed four separate cases seeking judgments that certain amendments to their states' election laws and procedures were subject to the pre-approval requirements of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and hence were not enforceable until the state complied with the requirements. The district courts found that the Voting Rights Act did not apply to the voting changes in the four cases and dismissed the complaints. The voters and candidates filed direct appeals, and the cases were consolidated.

Question

1. May a private litigant bring a suit to determine whether a voting change falls under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act?

2. If so, should these private litigants bring their suits in their local districts (even though certain suits under the Act must be brought in the District of Columbia)?

3. Did Congress intend for these suits to be heard before three-judge district courts with direct appeals to the Supreme Court?

4. Did the statutory and rules changes involved deal with “a voting qualification or prerequisite for voting, or standard, practice or procedure with respect to voting” within the meaning of section 5?

Conclusion

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

Yes, Yes, Yes. And Yes. The Supreme Court held that § 5 authorized a private right of action based on the remedial aims of the Voting Rights Act. The Court also interpreted the Act to provide that litigants bring these suits in their local district courts, and that three-judge district courts be convened (as was true at that time in constitutional challenges).

As to the substantive issue in the case, Chief Justice Earl Warren explained that the Voting Rights Act was "aimed at the subtle, as well as the obvious, state regulations which have the effect of denying citizens their right to vote because of their race." Therefore, the Court concluded that Congress intended that "all changes, no matter how small, be subjected to §5 scrutiny." The judgments were reversed, and all four cases were remanded to the district courts with instructions to issue injunctions restraining further enforcement of the enactments until such time as the states adequately demonstrated compliance with the approval requirements of the Act.

Justice John Marshall Harlan II, concurring in part and dissenting in part, argued that the language of § 5 referred only to laws by which voters registered to vote and had their ballots counted, and he therefore agreed that several of the disputed voting changes at issue were covered by the Act but disagreed as to several others. Justice Hugo Black dissented on the ground that § 5, in his view, is unconstitutional.

Mckart v. United States

Thu, 27 Feb 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

403

Petitioner

Mckart

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 185 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, February 27, 1969

Decided

Monday, May 26, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mckart, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Kramer v. Caribbean Mills

Thu, 23 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

156

Petitioner

Kramer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Caribbean Mills

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 823 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, January 23, 1969

Decided

Monday, May 5, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Caribbean Mills, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1359

None

Jenkins v. Mckeithen

Tue, 25 Mar 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

548

Appellee

Mckeithen

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Jenkins

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 411 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, March 25, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Jenkins, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Red Lion Broadcasting Co.v. FCC

Wed, 02 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Red Lion Broadcasting

2900 Windsor Rd. Red Lion PA 17356

Red Lion, PA 17356

United States

39° 54' 12.7476" N, 76° 34' 51.294" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Red Lion Broadcasting Co.

Respondent

FCC

Consolidation

No. 717

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 367 (1969)

Argued

April 2-3, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1969

Advocates

Archibald Cox (Argued the cause for the respondents in US v. Radio TV News Directors Assn)

Roger Robb (Argued the cause for the petitioners, Red Lion Broadcasting)

Erwin N. Griswold (Argued the cause for the United States as petitioner in US v. Radio TV News Directors Assn and the FCC as respondent in Red Lion)

Facts of the Case

The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) fairness doctrine requires radio and television broadcasters to present a balanced and fair discussion of public issues on the airwaves. The doctrine is composed of two primary requirements concerning personal attacks in the context of public issue debates and political editorializing. The FCC conditioned its renewal of broadcast licenses on compliance with its regulations. Red Lion Broadcasting challenged the application of the fairness doctrine with respect to a particular broadcast. In a companion case (United States v. Radio Television News Directors Association (RTNDA)), the fairness doctrine's requirements concerning any broadcast were challenged.

Question

Do the FCC's fairness doctrine regulations, concerning personal attacks made in the context of public issue debates and political editorializing, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantees?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for , 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the fairness doctrine was consistent with the First Amendment. Writing for the Court, Justice White argued that spectrum scarcity made it "idle to posit an unabridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak, write, or publish." The Court held that the FCC's fairness doctrine regulations enhanced rather than infringed the freedoms of speech protected under the First Amendment. With respect to the regulation of personal attacks made in the context of public issue debates, the FCC's requirement that the subject of the attack be provided with a tape, transcript, or broadcast summary, as well as an opportunity to respond without having to prove an inability to pay for the "air-time," insured a balanced and open discussion of contested issues. The requirement that political editorializing be presented for and against both sides of the debated issues also contributed to the balanced discussion of public concerns.

Montgomery v. Burns

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:12:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

438

Appellee

Burns

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Montgomery

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 848 (1969)

Decided

Monday, May 5, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Boyle v. Landry

Mon, 24 Mar 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellant

Boyle et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Lawrence Landry et al.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 77 (1971)

Argued

Monday, March 24, 1969

Reargued:

Wednesday, April 29, 1970, Monday, November 16, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Boyle, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Railroad Trainmen v. Terminal Co.

Wed, 11 Dec 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Railroad Trainmen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Terminal Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 369 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, December 11, 1968

Decided

Tuesday, March 25, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Railroad Trainmen, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

U.S. v. Phosphate Export Assn.

Thu, 24 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Phosphate Export Assn.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

U.S.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 199 (1968)

Argued

Thursday, October 24, 1968

Decided

Monday, November 25, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for U.S., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 62

None

Gregg v. United States

Tue, 25 Feb 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

453

Petitioner

Gregg

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 489 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, February 25, 1969

Decided

Wednesday, April 2, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Nardello

Tue, 12 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Nardello

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 286 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, November 12, 1968

Decided

Monday, January 13, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1952

None

Carroll v. Princess Anne

Mon, 21 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Carroll

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Princess Anne

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 175 (1968)

Argued

Monday, October 21, 1968

Decided

Tuesday, November 19, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. U.S. Coin & Currency

Tue, 25 Feb 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

U.S. Coin & Currency

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 715 (1971)

Argued

February 25-26, 1969

Reargued:

Tuesday, October 20, 1970

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for U.S. Coin & Currency, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

NLRB v. Strong

Tue, 10 Dec 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Strong

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 357 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, December 10, 1968

Decided

Wednesday, January 15, 1969

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

Duvernay v. United States

Thu, 27 Feb 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

814

Petitioner

Duvernay

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 309 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, February 27, 1969

Decided

Monday, March 24, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Boykin v. Alabama

Tue, 04 Mar 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

642

Petitioner

Boykin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alabama

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 238 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, March 4, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Boykin, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Ymca v. United States

Mon, 03 Mar 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

517

Petitioner

Ymca

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 85 (1969)

Argued

Monday, March 3, 1969

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Street v. New York

Mon, 21 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

New York

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Street

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 576 (1969)

Argued

Monday, October 21, 1968

Decided

Monday, April 21, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Stanley v. Georgia

Tue, 14 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Stanley's Home

"280 Springside Drive**** S.E." Atlanta GA 30354

Atlanta, GA 30354

United States

33° 40' 38.4312" N, 84° 22' 48.0324" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

293

Petitioner

Georgia

Respondent

Stanley

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 557 (1969)

Argued

January 14-15, 1969

Decided

Monday, April 7, 1969

Advocates

J. Robert Sparks (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Wesley R. Asinof (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Facts of the Case

Law enforcement officers, under the authority of a warrant, searched Stanley's home pursuant to an investigation of his alleged bookmaking activities. During the search, the officers found three reels of eight-millimeter film. The officers viewed the films, concluded they were obscene, and seized them. Stanley was then tried and convicted under a Georgia law prohibiting the possession of obscene materials.

Question

Did the Georgia statute infringe upon the freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?

Conclusion

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

The Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibited making private possession of obscene materials a crime. In his majority opinion, Justice Marshall noted that the rights to receive information and to personal privacy were fundamental to a free society. Marshall then found that "[i]f the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds." The Court distinguished between the mere private possession of obscene materials and the production and distribution of such materials. The latter, the Court held, could be regulated by the states.

Robinson v. Johnson

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:12:18 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Johnson

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Robinson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 847 (1969)

Decided

Monday, May 5, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Gregory v. Chicago

Tue, 10 Dec 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Gregory

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chicago

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 111 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, December 10, 1968

Decided

Monday, March 10, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Citizen Publishing Co. v. U.S.

Wed, 15 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

243

Appellee

U.S.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Citizen Publishing Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 131 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, January 15, 1969

Decided

Monday, March 10, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for U.S., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Comm. School Dist.

Tue, 12 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Des Moines Independent Community School District

1801 16th Street Des Moines IA 50314

Des Moines, IA 50314

United States

41° 36' 41.8212" N, 93° 38' 17.5452" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Tinker

Respondent

Des Moines Ind. Comm. School Dist.

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, November 12, 1968

Decided

Monday, February 24, 1969

Advocates

Dan L. Johnston (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Allan A. Herrick (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

John Tinker, 15 years old, his sister Mary Beth Tinker, 13 years old, and Christopher Echardt, 16 years old, decided along with their parents to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to their Des Moines schools during the Christmas holiday season. Upon learning of their intentions, and fearing that the armbands would provoke disturbances, the principals of the Des Moines school district resolved that all students wearing armbands be asked to remove them or face suspension. When the Tinker siblings and Christopher wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them. When they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day.

Question

Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?

Conclusion

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

The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment. School environments imply limitations on free expression, but here the principals lacked justification for imposing any such limits.The principals had failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline.

United States v. Donruss Co.

Tue, 22 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Donruss Co.

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 297 (1969)

Argued

October 22-23, 1968

Decided

Monday, January 13, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham

Mon, 18 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Shuttlesworth

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Birmingham

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 147 (1969)

Argued

Monday, November 18, 1968

Decided

Monday, March 10, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Golden v. Zwickler

Thu, 16 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

370

Appellee

Zwickler

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Golden

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 103 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, January 16, 1969

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Thorpe v. Housing Authority

Wed, 23 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Thorpe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Housing Authority

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 268 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, October 23, 1968

Decided

Monday, January 13, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

North Carolina v. Pearce

Mon, 24 Feb 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

413

Petitioner

North Carolina

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pearce

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 418

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 711 (1969)

Argued

Monday, February 24, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 23, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Pearce, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Daniel v. Paul

Mon, 24 Mar 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

488

Petitioner

Daniel

Respondent

Paul

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 298 (1969)

Argued

March 24-25, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Daniel, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II

None

Wells v. Rockefeller

Mon, 13 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

238

Appellee

Rockefeller

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Wells

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 542 (1969)

Argued

Monday, January 13, 1969

Decided

Monday, April 7, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Wells, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Composition of the House of Representatives

None

Palmieri v. Florida

Wed, 20 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

131

Petitioner

Palmieri

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 218 (1968)

Argued

Wednesday, November 20, 1968

Decided

Monday, December 9, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Florida, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Hadnott v. Amos

Fri, 18 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

647

Appellant

Sallie M. Hadnott, et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Mabel S. Amos, et al.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 358 (1969)

Argued

Friday, October 18, 1968, Tuesday, January 21, 1969

Decided

Tuesday, March 25, 1969

Advocates

Charles Morgan, Jr. (for the appellant)

L. Drew Redden (Special Assistant Attorney General of Alabama, for the appellees)

Louis Claiborne (for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

The National Democratic Party of Alabama (NDPA) sought to place the names of minority candidates on the ballot for local and state-wide offices. Alabama election officials denied the NDPA request under the Alabama Corrupt Practices Act. The NDPA then brought suit in a special three-judge U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama claiming constitutional violations. NDPA lost and appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Initially, the Court heard arguments on October 18 in support of a temporary restraining order which it had granted on October 14. The day after oral argument, the Court granted the order and subsequently addressed the merits of the controversy on March 25.

Question

Does the application of the Alabama Corrupt Practices Act (1) violate the Fifteenth Amendment provides guaranteeing the right to vote and (2) violate the First Amendment's right to band together to advance political beliefs?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Hadnott, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes and yes. In an opinion authored by Justice William O. Douglas, the Court acknowledged that "the regulation of corrupt practices in state and federal elections is an important governmental function, [but] we refuse to accept a reading of an Act which gives such a loose meaning to words and such discretionary authority to election officials as to cause Fifteenth and First Amendment rights to be subject to disparate treatment."

Justice Byron R. White, joined by Justice Potter Stewart, dissented in part, arguing that the district court should have had the opportunity to rule on the constitutionality of the Corrupt Practices Act.

Justice Hugo L. Black took no part in the consideration or decision in this case.

Skinner v. Louisiana

Tue, 10 Dec 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Skinner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 473 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, December 10, 1968

Decided

Monday, January 27, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Crane v. Cedar Rapids & I. C. R. Co.

Thu, 24 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

791

Petitioner

Crane

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cedar Rapids & I. C. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 164 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, April 24, 1969

Decided

Monday, May 26, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Cedar Rapids & I. C. R. Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 45 U.S.C. 2

None

Glover v. St. Louis-S. F. R. Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Glover

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

St. Louis-S. F. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 324 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, November 14, 1968

Decided

Tuesday, January 14, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Smith v. Hooey

Wed, 11 Dec 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

198

Petitioner

Smith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hooey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 374 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, December 11, 1968

Decided

Monday, January 20, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Williams v. Oklahoma City

Tue, 01 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

841

Petitioner

Williams

Respondent

Oklahoma City

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 458 (1969)

Argued

April 1-2, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Leary v. United States

Wed, 11 Dec 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Leary

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 6 (1969)

Argued

December 11-12, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Leary, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

SEC v. National Securities, Inc.

Mon, 18 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Securities and Exchange Commission

Respondent

National Securities, Inc.

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 453 (1969)

Argued

November 18-19, 1968

Decided

Monday, January 27, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for SEC, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty Co.

Tue, 25 Feb 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

436

Petitioner

Rodrigue

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aetna Casualty Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 352 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, February 25, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Rodrigue, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 46 U.S.C. 761

None

In Re Herndon

Tue, 21 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Petitioner

In Re Herndon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 399

Argued

Tuesday, January 21, 1969

Decided

Tuesday, March 25, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Oestereich v. Selective Service Bd.

Thu, 24 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Oestereich

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Selective Service Bd.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 233 (1968)

Argued

Thursday, October 24, 1968

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Oestereich, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Williams v. Rhodes

Mon, 07 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Ohio General Assembly

77 S High Street Columbus OH 43215

Columbus, OH 43215

United States

39° 57' 37.854" N, 83° 0' 1.1664" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

543

Appellant

Glen A. Williams et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

James A. Rhodes, Governor of Ohio

Respondent Type

Appellee

Consolidation

Socialist Labor Party et al. v. Rhodes, Governor of Ohio, et al., No. 544

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 23 (1968)

Argued

Monday, October 7, 1968

Decided

Tuesday, October 15, 1968

Advocates

David J. Young (argued the cause for appellants in No. 543)

Jerry Gordon (argued the cause for appellants in No. 544)

Charles S. Lopeman (argued the cause for appellees in both cases)

Facts of the Case

To be placed on the ballot in a presidential election, Ohio law required a new political party obtain voter signatures totaling 15% of the number of ballots cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Both the American Independent Party and the Socialist Labor Party sought ballot access in Ohio for the 1968 presidential election. The American Independent Party, formed by supporters of George C. Wallace, obtained the requisite number of signatures but failed to file its petition for ballot access prior to the February 7, 1968 deadline. The Socialist Labor Party, which until 1948 had been on the ballot, failed to collect enough signatures and was also kept off the ballot. The parties filed separate suits in U.S. District Court against several state officials, including Governor James A. Rhodes, contending that being kept off the ballot violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The cases were consolidated, and the court ruled that each party must be given write-in access but did not require the state to print the parties' candidates' names on the ballot. The American Independent Party requested and was granted an injunction forcing the state to add the party's candidates to the ballot while the case was on appeal. The Socialist Labor Party filed a similar request, but did so much later, and was denied primarily to avoid confusion in requiring the reprinting of another set of ballots.

Question

Did Ohio violate the parties' equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to print their candidates' names on the ballot?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Hugo L. Black, the Court found that Ohio failed to show a compelling interest in limiting the parties' ballot access. The Court concluded that Ohio's restrictions gave the two major parties a "total monopoly" and imposed a significant, unequal burden on minority groups. Given this fact, and the particular importance of the right to vote, Ohio's arguments that its restrictive policies maintained an orderly process and ensured an electoral victor would have at least 50% of the vote failed to meet the necessary standard of a compelling state interest. The Court struck down the Ohio restrictions and granted the American Independent Party full ballot access. To avoid confusion and a last-minute reorganization of the ballot, however, it denied the Socialist Labor Party such access for the 1968 election, in accordance with the injunctive order.

Brandenburg v. Ohio

Thu, 27 Feb 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Farm

350 Two Mile Road Hamilton County OH 45230

Hamilton County, OH 45230

United States

39° 3' 47.2464" N, 84° 24' 50.1192" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

492

Appellee

Ohio

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Brandenburg

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, February 27, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1969

Advocates

Allen Brown (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Leonard Kirschner (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."

Question

Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

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

The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.

Willingham v. Morgan

Tue, 22 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

228

Petitioner

Willingham

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Morgan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 402 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, April 22, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Willingham, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1442

None

Samuels v. Mackell

Tue, 01 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Mackell

Respondent

Samuels

Consolidation

No. 9

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 66 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, April 1, 1969

Reargued:

Wednesday, April 29, 1970, Monday, November 16, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Harrington v. California

Wed, 23 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

750

Petitioner

Harrington

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 250 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, April 23, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for California, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: harmless error

None

Gunn v. University Committee

Mon, 13 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

University Committee

Respondent

Gunn

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

399 U.S. 383 (1970)

Argued

January 13-14, 1969

Reargued:

April 29-30, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 29, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for University Committee, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1253

None

Kaufman v. United States

Tue, 19 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Kaufman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 217 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, November 19, 1968

Decided

Monday, March 24, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Kaufman, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Harris v. Nelson

Mon, 09 Dec 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

199

Petitioner

Harris

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nelson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 286 (1969)

Argued

Monday, December 9, 1968

Decided

Monday, March 24, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Harris, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Watts v. United States

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:12:20 +0000

Location

Washington Monument Grounds

15th St and Constitution Ave NW Washington DC 20007

Washington, DC 20007

United States

38° 53' 22.56" N, 77° 2' 7.08" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

1107 MISC

Petitioner

Robert Watts

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 705 (1969)

Decided

Monday, April 21, 1969

Facts of the Case

On August 27, 1966 while attending a protest and discussing police brutality, eighteen-year-old Robert Watts stated, "I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." A federal statute makes it a crime to "knowingly and willfully" threaten the life of the President. Watts was arrested, tried, and convicted in federal court for violating this statute. Watts argued the statement "did not constitute a 'threat' within the language of the statute." On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected this argument, finding that the statement violated the statute even if Watts had no intention of carrying out his threat, and affirmed the lower court's judgment.

Question

Was Watt's statement a legitimate threat within the meaning of the statute?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Watts, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 871

No. In a per curiam opinion, the Court concluded, without hearing arguments, that Watts' statement was "political hyperbole". The Court noted, "The language of the political arena… is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact." Thus, considering the "context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners," the Court ruled that Watts' statement was not a true threat.

Kirkpatrick v. Preisler

Mon, 13 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Preisler

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Kirkpatrick

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 31

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 526 (1969)

Argued

Monday, January 13, 1969

Decided

Monday, April 7, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Preisler, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Composition of the House of Representatives

None

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

Tue, 22 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

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

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Firemen

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 18

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 129 (1968)

Argued

Tuesday, October 22, 1968

Decided

Monday, November 18, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Firemen, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

United States v. Augenblick

Thu, 21 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Augenblick

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 348 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, November 21, 1968

Decided

Tuesday, January 14, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Evidence

None

Johnson v. Avery

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Johnson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Avery

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 483 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, November 14, 1968

Decided

Monday, February 24, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Frazier v. Cupp

Wed, 26 Feb 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

643

Petitioner

Frazier

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cupp

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 731 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, February 26, 1969

Decided

Tuesday, April 22, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Shuttle Corp. v. Transit Comm'n

Mon, 21 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Shuttle Corp.

Respondent

Transit Comm'n

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 186 (1968)

Argued

October 21-22, 1968

Decided

Monday, November 25, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Shuttle Corp., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 16 U.S.C. 1

None

Chimel v. California

Thu, 27 Mar 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Chimel's Home

S Main Street and W Chestnut Avenue Santa Ana CA 93701

Santa Ana, CA 93701

United States

33° 44' 32.748" N, 117° 52' 3.7596" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

770

Petitioner

Chimel

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 752 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, March 27, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 23, 1969

Advocates

Keith C. Monroe (By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Ronald M. George (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Local police officers went to Chimel's home with a warrant authorizing his arrest for burglary. Upon serving him with the arrest warrant, the officers conducted a comprehensive search of Chimel's residence. The search uncovered a number of items that were later used to convict Chimel. State courts upheld the conviction.

Question

Was the warrantless search of Chimel's home constitutionally justified under the Fourth Amendment as "incident to that arrest?"

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Chimel, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the search of Chimel's house was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court reasoned that searches "incident to arrest" are limited to the area within the immediate control of the suspect. While police could reasonably search and seize evidence on or around the arrestee's person, they were prohibited from rummaging through the entire house without a search warrant. The Court emphasized the importance of warrants and probable cause as necessary bulwarks against government abuse.

Kaiser v. New York

Thu, 16 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Kaiser

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 280 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, January 16, 1969

Decided

Monday, March 24, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mccarthy v. United States

Mon, 09 Dec 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Mccarthy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 459 (1969)

Argued

Monday, December 9, 1968

Decided

Wednesday, April 2, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church

Mon, 09 Dec 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Presbyterian Church

Respondent

Hull Church

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 440 (1969)

Argued

December 9-10, 1968

Decided

Monday, January 27, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Presbyterian Church, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Free Exercise of Religion

None

Boulden v. Holman

Wed, 26 Feb 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

644

Petitioner

Boulden

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Holman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 478 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, February 26, 1969

Decided

Wednesday, April 2, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Boulden, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

United States v. King

Wed, 02 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

672

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

King

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 1 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, April 2, 1969

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2201

None

United States v. Container Corp.

Mon, 18 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Container Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 333 (1969)

Argued

Monday, November 18, 1968

Decided

Tuesday, January 14, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Utah Comm'n v. El Paso Gas Co.

Tue, 29 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

776

Appellee

El Paso Gas Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Utah Comm'n

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 464 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, April 29, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Utah Comm'n, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Supreme Court Rules

None

Perez v. California

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Perez

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 208 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, November 14, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 26, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for California, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Kramer v. Union School District

Thu, 16 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Union Free School District No. 15 Cedarhurst, NY 11516

United States

40° 37' 36.12" N, 73° 43' 40.44" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

258

Appellant

Morris H. Kramer et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Union School District

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 621 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, January 16, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1969

Advocates

Osmond K. Fraenkel (argued the cause for the appellant)

John P. Jehu (argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

Section 2012 of the New York Education Law permitted school districts to limit eligible voters in school district elections to citizens owning or leasing taxable real property and parents of children enrolled in public schools. Union School District No. 15 applied these restrictions. On April 25, 1965, Morris H. Kramer, a resident of district 15 who resided with his parents and had no children, attempted to register for the local school district elections. His application was rejected for failure to comply with the restrictions. Kramer filed a class-action suit against the school board in federal court, claiming his constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had been violated. The district court initially declined to hear his constitutional claims, but, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit directed the district court to hear Kramer's claim. On hearing the complaint, the court found no constitutional violation and denied Kramer's claim.

Question

Did the requirement that he be a landowner or parent of a student to vote in school district elections violate Kramer's rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In a 5-3 decision authored by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court accepted Kramer's argument that all district residents share substantial interest in school meeting decisions. While the statute purported to limit voting rights to those who were "primarily interested" in the election's outcome, the Court found the structure of the law too broad to achieve this goal. The Court concluded that such restrictions must be tailored to achieve the stated goal, and the current classifications "permit inclusion of many persons who have, at best, a remote and indirect interest in school affairs and, on the other hand, exclude others who have a distinct and direct interest in the school meeting decisions."

Dunbar-Stanley Studios v. Alabama

Thu, 16 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

376

Appellee

Alabama

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Dunbar-Stanley Studios

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 537 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, January 16, 1969

Decided

Tuesday, February 25, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Brotherhood Of Railroad Trainmen v. O'connell

Tue, 14 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

158

Petitioner

Brotherhood Of Railroad Trainmen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

O'connell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 172

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 210 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, January 14, 1969

Decided

Monday, May 26, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Brotherhood Of Railroad Trainmen, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. Covington

Thu, 12 Dec 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

366

Appellee

Covington

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 57 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, December 12, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Covington, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Cardinale v. Louisiana

Mon, 24 Feb 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Cardinale

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 437 (1969)

Argued

Monday, February 24, 1969

Decided

Tuesday, April 1, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Grunenthal v. Long Island R. Co.

Thu, 24 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Grunenthal

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Long Island R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 156 (1968)

Argued

Thursday, October 24, 1968

Decided

Monday, November 18, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Grunenthal, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Employers' Liability

None

U.S. v. Montgomery Bd. Of Educ.

Mon, 28 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

798

Petitioner

U.S.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Montgomery Bd. Of Educ.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 997

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 225 (1969)

Argued

Monday, April 28, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co.

Mon, 03 Mar 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

463

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wyman-Gordon Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 759 (1969)

Argued

Monday, March 3, 1969

Decided

Wednesday, April 23, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for NLRB, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Administrative Procedure, or Administrative Orders Review

None

Mcdonald v. Board Of Election

Tue, 19 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Board Of Election

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mcdonald

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 802 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, November 19, 1968

Decided

Monday, April 28, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

B. & O. R. Co. v. Aberdeen & R. R. Co.

Thu, 17 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Aberdeen & R. R. Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

B. & O. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 15

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 87 (1968)

Argued

Thursday, October 17, 1968

Decided

Tuesday, November 12, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Aberdeen & R. R. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

Spinelli v. United States

Wed, 16 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Location

apartment

1108 Indian Circle Drive

St. Louis, MO

United States

38° 40' 27.3576" N, 90° 23' 2.2092" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

William Spinelli

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 410 (1969)

Argued

October 16-17, 1968

Decided

Monday, January 27, 1969

Advocates

Irl B. Baris (for the petitioner)

Joseph J. Connolly (for the United States, pro hac vice)

Facts of the Case

Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) applied for, and were issued, a search warrant to assist in uncovering evidence of defendant William Spinelli conducting illegal gambling activities. In the affidavit required for the warrant application, the FBI agents stated the defendant was known to "local law enforcement officials as a bookmaker." The FBI related in the affidavit that agents had tracked defendant Spinelli for five days, and that on four of the days, Spinelli was seen crossing into St. Louis, MO, entering an apartment at 1108 Indian Circle Drive. Finally, the agents offered that they "had been informed by a confidential reliable informant that William Spinelli is operating a handbook and accepting wagers and disseminating wagering information by means of the telephones which have been assigned the numbers WYdown 4-0029 and WYdown 4-0136."

Question

Did the affidavit included in the warrant application afford probable cause sufficient to issue the search warrant?

Conclusion

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

No. The informant's tip, even when corroborated with the FBI's observations from their surveillance, was not sufficient to provide a basis for a finding probable cause when using the two-pronged test set forth in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964). (Abstract prepared by Blaine Schmidt.)

NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co.

Wed, 26 Mar 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

573

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent

Gissel Packing Co.

Consolidation

Food Store Employees Union, Local No. 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., No. 691

Sinclair Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 585

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 575 (1969)

Argued

March 26-27, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1969

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for respondent in No. 585)

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

United States v. Estate Of Grace

Tue, 22 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

574

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Estate Of Grace

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 316 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, April 22, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp.

Mon, 21 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

130

Petitioner

Sniadach

Respondent

Family Finance Corp.

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 337 (1969)

Argued

Monday, April 21, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Sniadach, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Marine Terminals v. Shipping Co.

Wed, 15 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

291

Petitioner

Marine Terminals

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shipping Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 404 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, January 15, 1969

Decided

Tuesday, April 1, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Marine Terminals, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation

None

Orozco v. Texas

Wed, 26 Feb 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

641

Petitioner

Orozco

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Texas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 324 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, February 26, 1969

Decided

Tuesday, March 25, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Orozco, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miranda Warnings

None

Perkins v. Standard Oil Co.

Tue, 22 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

624

Petitioner

Perkins

Respondent

Standard Oil Co.

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 642 (1969)

Argued

April 22-23, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Perkins, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Robinson-Patman

None

Nacirema Co. v. Johnson

Tue, 25 Mar 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Nacirema Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Johnson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 16

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

396 U.S. 212 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, March 25, 1969

Reargued:

Monday, October 20, 1969

Decided

Tuesday, December 9, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Nacirema Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation

None

Frank v. United States

Thu, 12 Dec 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

200

Petitioner

Frank

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 147 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, December 12, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Fortner Enterprises v. U.S. Steel

Thu, 23 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

306

Petitioner

Fortner Enterprises

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S. Steel

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 495 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, January 23, 1969

Decided

Monday, April 7, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Fortner Enterprises, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Cipriano v. City Of Houma

Thu, 24 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

705

Appellee

City Of Houma

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Cipriano

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 701 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, April 24, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Desist v. United States

Tue, 12 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Desist

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 244 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, November 12, 1968

Decided

Monday, March 24, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Foster v. California

Tue, 19 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Foster

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 440 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, November 19, 1968

Decided

Tuesday, April 1, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Powell v. McCormack

Mon, 21 Apr 1969 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.

138

Petitioner

Powell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

McCormack

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 486 (1969)

Argued

Monday, April 21, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1969

Advocates

Bruce Bromley (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Arthur Kinoy (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Herbert O. Reid (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Adam Clayton Powell pecked at his fellow representatives from his unassailable perch in New York's Harlem. Powell had been embroiled in controversy inside and outside Washington. When Powell failed to heed civil proceedings against him in New York, a judge held him in criminal contempt. His problems were only beginning. He won reelection in 1966 but the House of Representatives voted to exclude him.

Question

May the House of Representatives exclude a duly elected member if the member has satisfied the standing requirements of age, citizenship and residence as articulated in Article I Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution?

Conclusion

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

No. The Court noted that the proceedings against Powell were intended to exclude and not expel him from the chamber. That is an important distinction to recognize since the House does have the power under Article I, Section 5 to expel members. However, expulsion was not the purpose of the proceedings in this case. After analyzing the Framers' debates on this issue, Chief Justice Warren concluded that since Powell had been lawfully elected by his constituents and since he met the constitutional requirements for membership in the House, that the chamber was powerless to exclude him.

Noyd v. Bond

Thu, 24 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

830

Petitioner

Noyd

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bond

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 683 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, April 24, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Bond, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Uniform Code of Military Justice

None

Benton v. Maryland

Thu, 12 Dec 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

201

Petitioner

Benton

Respondent

Maryland

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 784 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, December 12, 1968

Reargued:

Monday, March 24, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 23, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Benton, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Snyder v. Harris

Tue, 21 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

109

Petitioner

Snyder

Respondent

Harris

Consolidation

No. 117

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 332 (1969)

Argued

January 21-22, 1969

Decided

Tuesday, March 25, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Harris, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Sullivan v. United States

Wed, 02 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

610

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Sullivan

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 169 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, April 2, 1969

Decided

Monday, May 26, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Sullivan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 50 U.S.C. 574

None

Moore v. Ogilvie

Thu, 27 Mar 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

620

Appellee

Ogilvie

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Moore

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 814 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, March 27, 1969

Decided

Monday, May 5, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Bacto-Unidisk

Thu, 23 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

343

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bacto-Unidisk

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 784 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, January 23, 1969

Decided

Monday, April 28, 1969

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic, and related statutes

None

Mattiello v. Connecticut

Wed, 11 Dec 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

150

Appellee

Connecticut

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mattiello

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 209 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, December 11, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 26, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lear, Inc. v. Adkins

Wed, 20 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Lear, Inc.

Respondent

Adkins

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 653 (1969)

Argued

November 20-21, 1968

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1969

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Lear, Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Estoppel

None

Epperson v. Arkansas

Wed, 16 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Arkansas

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Epperson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 97 (1968)

Argued

Wednesday, October 16, 1968

Decided

Tuesday, November 12, 1968

Advocates

Don Langston (Argued the cause for appellee)

Eugene R. Warren (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

The Arkansas legislature passed a law prohibiting teachers in public or state- supported schools from teaching, or using textbooks that teach, human evolution. Epperson, a public school teacher, sued, claiming the law violated her First Amendment right to free speech as well as the Establishment Clause. The State Chancery Court ruled that it violated his free speech rights; the State Supreme Court reversed.

Question

Does a law forbidding the teaching of evolution violate either the free speech rights of teachers or the Establishment clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Epperson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

Yes. Seven members of the Court held that the statute violated the Establishment clause. Writing for the Court, Justice Abe Fortas stated that the law had been based solely on the beliefs of fundamentalist Christians, who felt that evolutionary theories directly contradicted the biblical account of Creation. This use of state power to prohibit the teaching of material objectionable to a particular sect ammounted to an unconstitutional Establishment of religion. Justice Fortas wrote, "The State's undoubted right to prescribe the curriculum for its public schools does not carry with it the right to prohibit, on pain of criminal penalty, the teaching of a scientific theory or doctrine where that prohibition is based upon reasons that violate the First Amendment." The two other members of the Court concurred in the result, writing that it violated either the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment (because it was unconstitutionally vague) or the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment.

Jenkins v. Delaware

Wed, 05 Mar 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

748

Petitioner

Jenkins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Delaware

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 213 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, March 5, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Delaware, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Banks v. California

Wed, 23 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

670

Petitioner

Banks

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 708 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, April 23, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for California, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

None

Scofield v. NLRB

Tue, 14 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

273

Petitioner

Scofield

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 423 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, January 14, 1969

Decided

Tuesday, April 1, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for NLRB, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Bingler v. Johnson

Mon, 03 Mar 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

473

Petitioner

Bingler

Respondent

Johnson

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 741 (1969)

Argued

March 3-4, 1969

Decided

Wednesday, April 23, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ftc v. Texaco

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Ftc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Texaco

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 223 (1968)

Argued

Wednesday, November 13, 1968

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Ftc, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Trade Commission

None

Immigration Service v. Stanisic

Tue, 25 Feb 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

297

Petitioner

Immigration Service

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stanisic

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 62 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, February 25, 1969

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 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

United States v. Louisiana

Mon, 18 Nov 1968 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

394 U.S. 1 (1969)

Argued

Monday, November 18, 1968

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Hunter v. Erickson

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Erickson

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hunter

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 385 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, November 13, 1968

Decided

Monday, January 20, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Rodriquez v. United States

Wed, 26 Mar 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

749

Petitioner

Rodriquez

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 327 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, March 26, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Rodriquez, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

O'callahan v. Parker

Thu, 23 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

646

Petitioner

O'callahan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Parker

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 258 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, January 23, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for O'callahan, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Uniform Code of Military Justice

None

Stiles v. United States

mgruhn — Wed, 20 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Philip Jerome Stiles

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 219 (1968)

Argued

Wednesday, November 20, 1968

Decided

Monday, December 9, 1968

Advocates

Charles J. Rogers, Jr. (by appointment of the Court, argued the cause for petitioner)

Erwin N. Griswold (Solicitor General, argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for dismissal, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: None

In a Per Curiam opinion, the Court dismissed the case as improvidently granted.