The Oyez Project: 1970 Term

Abate v. Mundt (No. 71)

No details yet.

Apodaca v. Oregon (No. 69-5046)

Apodaca and two other defendants were convicted of assault, burglary, and grand larceny before three separate juries, all of which returned verdicts which were less than unanimous. Two of the cases were 11-1 and the other was 10-2 in favor of conviction.

Askew v. Hargrave (No. 573)

No details yet.

Astrup v. Immigration Service (No. 840)

No details yet.

Atlantic City Electric Co. v. United States (No. 78)

No details yet.

Bell v. Burson (No. 5586)

No details yet.

Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents (No. 301)

No details yet.

Blonder-Tongue v. University Foundation (No. 338)

No details yet.

Blount v. Rizzi (No. 55)

No details yet.

Board Of Education v. Swann (No. 498)

No details yet.

Boilermakers v. Hardeman (No. 123)

No details yet.

Bostic v. United States (No. 5250)

No details yet.

Bruno v. Pennsylvania (No. 205)

No details yet.

California Human Resources Dept. v. Java (No. 507)

No details yet.

California v. Byers (No. 75)

No details yet.

Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Transportation Union (No. 189)

No details yet.

Citizens To Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (No. 1066)

No details yet.

Clay v. United States (No. 783)

Board No. 47, Louisville, Kentucky, denied the application of Cassius Clay, also known as Muhammad Ali, for classification as a conscientious objector. Clay then took an administrative appeal to the Kentucky Appeal Board, which tentatively classified him I-A, or eligible for unrestricted military service, and referred his file to the Justice Department for an advisory recommendation. The Justice Department concluded, contrary to a hearing officer's recommendation, that Clay's claim should be denied. The Department wrote that Clay did not meet any of the three basic tests for conscientious objector status; that he is conscientiously opposed to war in any form, that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief, and that this objection is sincere. Subsequently, the Appeal Board denied Clay's claim, but without stating its reasons. When Clay refused to report for induction, he was tried and convicted of willful refusal to submit to induction. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Coates v. City Of Cincinnati (No. 117)

No details yet.

Cohen v. California (No. 299)

A 19-year-old department store worker expressed his opposition to the Vietnam War by wearing a jacket emblazoned with "FUCK THE DRAFT. STOP THE WAR" The young man, Paul Cohen, was charged under a California statute that prohibits "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or person [by] offensive conduct." Cohen was found guilty and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Commissioner v. Lincoln Savings & Loan Assn. (No. 544)

No details yet.

Connell v. Higginbotham (No. 79)

No details yet.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire (No. 323)

In the wake of a "particularly brutal" murder of a fourteen-year-old girl, the New Hampshire Attorney General took charge of police activities relating to the murder. When the police applied for a warrant to search suspect Edward Coolidge's automobile, the Attorney General, acting as a justice of the peace, authorized it. Additionally, local police had taken items from Coolidge's home during the course of an interview with the suspect's wife. Coolidge was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Davis v. School Comm'rs Of Mobile County (No. 436)

No details yet.

Decker v. Harper & Row Publishers (No. 113)

No details yet.

Dewey v. Reynolds Metals Co. (No. 835)

No details yet.

Donaldson v. United States (No. 65)

No details yet.

Ehlert v. United States. (No. 120)

No details yet.

Ely v. Klahr (No. 548)

No details yet.

Gainesville Utilities v. Florida Power Corp. (No. 464)

No details yet.

Gillette v. United States (No. 85)

No details yet.

Gordon v. Lance (No. 96)

No details yet.

Graham v. Richardson (No. 609)

No details yet.

Griffin v. Breckenridge (No. 144)

No details yet.

Griggs v. Duke Power Company (No. 124)

Willie Griggs filed a class action, on behalf of several fellow African- American employees, against his employer Duke Power Company . Griggs challenged Duke's "inside" transfer policy, requiring employees who want to work in all but the company's lowest paying Labor Department to register a minimum score on two separate aptitude tests in addition to having a high school education. Griggs claimed that Duke's policy discriminated against African-American employees in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. On appeal from a district court's dismissal of the claim, the Court of Appeals found no discriminatory practices. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Groppi v. Wisconsin (No. 26)

No details yet.

Grove Press, v. Maryland State Board Of Censors (No. 63)

No details yet.

Harris v. New York (No. 206)

Harris was arrested for making two sales of heroin to an undercover police officer. Before receiving the Miranda warnings, Harris said that he had made both sales at the request of the officer. This statement was not admitted into evidence at the trial. However, Harris later testified in Court that he did not make the first sale and in the second sale he merely sold the officer baking powder. Harris' initial statement was then used by the prosecution in an attempt to impeach his credibility.

Hickel v. Oil Shale Corp. (No. 25)

No details yet.

Hodgson v. Steelworkers (No. 655)

No details yet.

Hunter v. Tennessee (No. 5085)

No details yet.

Investment Co. Institute v. Camp (No. 61)

No details yet.

James v. Valtierra (No. 154)

No details yet.

Jenness v. Fortson (No. 5714)

No details yet.

Johnson v. Louisiana (No. 69-5035)

The Louisiana State Constitution and Code of Criminal Procedure allowed less-than-unanimous juries to convict defendants in criminal cases in which hard labor is considered as punishment. Nine of twelve jury members were needed to return a guilty verdict. Johnson was convicted of armed robbery by a jury split nine to three.

Johnson v. Mississippi (No. 5485)

No details yet.

Johnson v. United States (No. 5247)

No details yet.

Labine v. Vincent (No. 5257)

No details yet.

Law Students Research Council v. Wadmond (No. 49)

No details yet.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (No. 89)

This case was heard concurrently with two others, Earley v. DiCenso (1971) and Robinson v. DiCenso (1971). The cases involved controversies over laws in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. In Pennsylvania, a statute provided financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to non-public schools. The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools. Each statute made aid available to "church-related educational institutions."

Mackey v. United States (No. 36)

No details yet.

Magnesium Casting Co. v. NLRB (No. 370)

No details yet.

Marine Terminal v. Rederi. Transatlantic (No. 99)

No details yet.

Mayberry v. Pennsylvania (No. 121)

No details yet.

Mcdaniel v. Barresi (No. 420)

No details yet.

Mcgautha v. California (No. 203)

No details yet.

Mcgee v. United States (No. 362)

No details yet.

Mckeiver v. Pennsylvania (No. 322)

No details yet.

Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy (No. 62)

No details yet.

Moore v. Board Of Education (No. 444)

No details yet.

Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge (No. 76)

No details yet.

Nelson v. O'neil (No. 336)

No details yet.

New York Times v. United States (No. 1873)

In what became known as the "Pentagon Papers Case," the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. The President argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security. This case was decided together with United States v. Washington Post Co.

NLRB v. Natural Gas Utility District (No. 785)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Operating Engineers (No. 40)

No details yet.

Ocala Star-Banner Co. v. Damron (No. 118)

No details yet.

Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp. (No. 41 ORIG)

No details yet.

Oregon v. Mitchell (No. 43 ORIG)

No details yet.

Organization For A Better Austin v. Keefe (No. 135)

No details yet.

Palmer v. City Of Euclid (No. 143)

No details yet.

Palmer v. Thompson (No. 107)

No details yet.

Perez v. Campbell (No. 5175)

No details yet.

Perez v. Ledesma (No. 60)

No details yet.

Perez v. United States (No. 600)

No details yet.

Perkins v. Matthews (No. 46)

No details yet.

Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. (No. 73)

No details yet.

Piccirillo v. New York (No. 97)

No details yet.

Procunier v. Atchley (No. 44)

No details yet.

Radich v. New York (No. 169)

No details yet.

Ramsey v. Mine Workers (No. 88)

No details yet.

Relford v. U.S. Disciplinary Commandant (No. 98)

No details yet.

Rewis v. United States (No. 5342)

No details yet.

Richardson v. Perales (No. 108)

No details yet.

Rosenberg v. Yee Chien Woo (No. 156)

No details yet.

Rosenbloom v. Metromedia (No. 66)

No details yet.

Schlanger v. Seamans (No. 5481)

No details yet.

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed. (No. 281)

After the Supreme Court's decision in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education, little progress had been made in desegregating public schools. One example was the Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, system in which approximately 14,000 black students attended schools that were either totally black or more than 99 percent black. Lower courts had experimented with a number of possible solutions when the case reached the Supreme Court.

Tate v. Short (No. 324)

No details yet.

Tilton v. Richardson (No. 153)

The federal Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 provided construction grants to church-sponsored higher educational institutions. The grants were to be used for the construction of non-religious school facilities. The Act also stipulated that twenty years after the grant had been given, schools were free to use the buildings for any purpose.

Time, Inc. v. Pape (No. 109)

No details yet.

Triangle Improvement Council v. Ritchie (No. 712)

No details yet.

U.S. Bulk Carriers v. Arguelles (No. 29)

No details yet.

U.S. v. District Court For Eagle County (No. 87)

No details yet.

U.S. v. District Court For Water Di v. No. 5 (No. 812)

No details yet.

United States v. Armour & Co. (No. 759)

No details yet.

United States v. Freed (No. 345)

No details yet.

United States v. Greater Buffalo Press (No. 821)

No details yet.

United States v. Harris (No. 30)

No details yet.

United States v. International Min'ls Corp. (No. 557)

No details yet.

United States v. Mitchell (No. 798)

No details yet.

United States v. Randall (No. 125)

No details yet.

United States v. Reidel (No. 534)

No details yet.

United States v. Ryan (No. 758)

No details yet.

United States v. Southern Ute Indians (No. 515)

No details yet.

United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs (No. 133)

No details yet.

United States v. Vuitch (No. 84)

No details yet.

United States v. Weller (No. 77)

No details yet.

United Transportation Union v. Michigan Bar (No. 434)

No details yet.

Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp. (No. 47)

No details yet.

Utah v. United States (No. 31 ORIG)

No details yet.

Whitcomb v. Chavis (No. 92)

No details yet.

Whiteley v. Warden (No. 136)

No details yet.

Williams v. United States (No. 81)

No details yet.

Wisconsin v. Constantineau (No. 95)

No details yet.

Wyman v. James (No. 69)

No details yet.

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research (No. 80)

No details yet.