The Oyez Project: 1971 Term

Adams v. Illinois (No. 70-5038)

No details yet.

Adams v. Williams (No. 70-283)

No details yet.

Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States (No. 70-78)

No details yet.

Aikens v. California (No. 68-5027)

No details yet.

Aikens v. California (none) (No. None)

No details yet.

Alexander v. Louisiana (No. 70-5026)

No details yet.

Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. (No. 71-300)

No details yet.

Argersinger v. Hamlin (No. 70-5015)

Jon Argersinger was an indigent charged with carrying a concealed weapon, a misdemeanor in the State of Florida. The charge carried with it a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. During the bench trial in which he was convicted and sentenced to serve ninety days in jail, Argersinger was not represented by an attorney.

Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Erie Lackawanna R. Co. (No. 71-107)

No details yet.

Barker v. Wingo (No. 71-5255)

No details yet.

Bd. Of Regents v. New Left Education Project (No. 70-55)

No details yet.

Board of Regents v. Roth (No. 71-162)

David Roth was hired under a one-year contract to teach political science at Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh. He was informed that he would not be rehired at the end of his contract. No reasons were given for this decision. Roth brought suit against the university claiming that (1) the real reason for his non-retention was his criticism of the university administration violating his right to free speech protected by the Fourteenth Amendment; and (2) the university's failure to advise him of the reason for its decision violated his right to procedural due process. Roth won on the second claim. It was upheld on appeal.

Boyd v. Dutton (No. 70-5075)

No details yet.

Branzburg v. Hayes (No. 70-85)

After observing and interviewing a number of people synthesizing and using drugs in a two-county area in Kentucky, Branzburg, a reporter, wrote a story which appeared in a Louisville newspaper. On two occasions he was called to testify before state grand juries which were investigating drug crimes. Branzburg refused to testify and potentially disclose the identities of his confidential sources. Similarly, in the companion cases of In re Pappas and United States v. Caldwell, two different reporters, each covering activity within the Black Panther organization, were called to testify before grand juries and reveal trusted information. Like Branzburg, both Pappas and Caldwell refused to appear before their respective grand juries.

Britt v. North Carolina (No. 70-5041)

No details yet.

Brooks v. Tennessee (No. 71-5313)

No details yet.

Brunette Machine Wks. v. Kockum Industries (No. 70-314)

No details yet.

Bullock v. Carter (No. 70-128)

No details yet.

California Transport v. Trucking Unlimited (No. 70-92)

No details yet.

Caplin v. Marine Midland Grace Trust Co. (No. 70-220)

No details yet.

Carleson v. Remillard (No. 70-250)

No details yet.

Carter v. Stanton (No. 70-5082)

No details yet.

Central Hardware Co. v. NLRB (No. 70-223)

No details yet.

Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Glass (No. 70-32)

No details yet.

Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson (No. 70-11)

No details yet.

Cole v. Richardson (No. 70-14)

No details yet.

Colten v. Kentucky (No. 71-404)

No details yet.

Combs v. United States (No. 71-517)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. First Security Bank Of Utah (No. 70-305)

No details yet.

D. H. Overmyer Co. v. Frick Co. (No. 69-5)

No details yet.

Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp. (No. 71-315)

No details yet.

Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church (No. 70-47)

No details yet.

Doe v. Bolton (No. 70-40)

No details yet.

Dukes v. Warden (No. 71-5172)

No details yet.

Duncan v. Tennessee (No. 70-5122)

No details yet.

Dunn v. Blumstein (No. 70-13)

A Tennessee law required a one-year residence in the state and a three-month residence in the county as a precondition for voting. James Blumstein, a university professor who had recently moved to Tennessee, challenged the law by filing suit against Governor Winfield Dunn and other local officials in federal district court.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (No. 70-17)

William Baird gave away Emko Vaginal Foam to a woman following his Boston University lecture on birth control and over-population. Massachusetts charged Baird with a felony, to distribute contraceptives to unmarried men or women. Under the law, only married couples could obtain contraceptives; only registered doctors or pharmacists could provide them. Baird was not an authorized distributor of contraceptives.

Evansville Airport v. Delta Airlines (No. 70-99)

No details yet.

Fein v. Selective Service System (No. 70-58)

No details yet.

First Nat. City Bk. v. Banco Nacional De Cuba (No. 70-295)

No details yet.

Flood v. Kuhn (No. 71-32)

No details yet.

Flower v. United States (No. 71-1180)

No details yet.

Ford Motor Co. v. United States (No. 70-113)

No details yet.

FPC v. Florida Power & Light Co. (No. 70-38)

No details yet.

FPC v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. (No. 71-1016)

No details yet.

Ftc v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co. (No. 70-70)

No details yet.

Fuentes v. Shevin (No. 70-5039)

No details yet.

Furman v. Georgia (No. 69-5003)

Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He attempted to flee, and in doing so tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went off and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death (Two other death penalty cases were decided along with Furman: Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas. These cases concern the constitutionality of the death sentence for rape and murder convictions, respectively).

Gelbard v. United States (No. 71-110)

Perry Paul, an alleged bookmaker, and Jerome Zarowitz, a former executive of a Las Vegas casino, had their telephones tapped by federal agents. The agents recorded conversations between Paul and David Gelbard and between Zarowitz and Sidney Parnas. Gelbard and Parnas were called before a federal grand jury convened to investigate possible violations of federal gambling laws. When the government pressed Gelbard and Parnas to testify about these conversations, however, they refused to do so. Instead, they claimed that the wiretaps were illegal and argued that they should not be required to testify until given an opportunity to challenge the legality of the taps. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California found Gelbard and Parnas in contempt of court and committed them to custody until they agreed to testify.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court, stating that "a witness in a grand jury proceeding has no right to resort to a court to secure authoritative advance determination concerning evidentiary matters that arise, or may arise, or to exclude evidence to be used in such a proceeding." Gelbard and Parnas then sought certiorari from the Court, pointing to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacating contempt charges against a witness under similar circumstances.

Giglio v. United States (No. 70-29)

No details yet.

Gooding v. Wilson (No. 70-26)

No details yet.

Gravel v. United States (No. 71-1017)

In 1971, Senator Mike Gravel received a copy of the Pentagon Papers: a set of classified documents concerning U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war. Gravel then introduced the study, in its entirety, into the record of a Senate Subcommittee meeting. Gravel also arranged for the private publication of the papers by the Beacon Press. A federal grand jury subpoenaed Leonard Rodberg, one of Gravel's aides, to testify about his role in the acquisition and publication of the papers.

Grayned v. City Of Rockford (No. 70-5106)

No details yet.

Groppi v. Leslie (No. 70-112)

No details yet.

Grubbs v. General Electric Credit Corp. (No. 71-257)

No details yet.

Haines v. Kerner (No. 70-5025)

No details yet.

Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. (No. 70-49)

No details yet.

Healy v. James (No. 71-452)

No details yet.

Huffman v. Boersen (No. 71-5097)

No details yet.

Humphrey v. Cady (No. 70-5004)

No details yet.

Illinois v. City Of Milwaukee (No. 49 ORIG)

No details yet.

In re Pappas (No. 70-94)

Pappas, a television newsman and photographer working out of a Providence RI office of a New Bedford MA television station, was called to New Bedford to report on civil disorders involving fires and other turmoil. Pappas intended to cover a Black Panther news conference. Pappas was admitted inside the Panther headquarters after agreeing that he would not disclose anything he saw or heard. Pappas stayed for three hours. He did not write a story based on his experience. Pappas was later summoned before a grand jury but he refused to answer questions about events that took place inside Panther headquarters.

Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. v. Thompson (No. 70-286)

No details yet.

Jackson v. Indiana (No. 70-5009)

No details yet.

James v. Strange (No. 71-11)

No details yet.

Jefferson v. Hackney (No. 70-5064)

No details yet.

Kastigar v. United States (No. 70-117)

Kastigar cited his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination in refusing to testify before a grand jury, even though prosecutors had granted him immunity from the use of his testimony in subsequent criminal proceedings. He was found in contempt of court for failing to testify.

Kirby v. Illinois (No. 70-5061)

No details yet.

Kleindienst v. Mandel (No. 71-16)

No details yet.

Laird v. Nelms (No. 71-573)

No details yet.

Laird v. Tatum (No. 71-288)

No details yet.

Lake Carriers' Assn. v. Macmullan (No. 71-422)

No details yet.

Lego v. Twomey (No. 70-5037)

No details yet.

Lindsey v. Normet (No. 70-5045)

No details yet.

Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (No. 71-492)

No details yet.

Loper v. Beto (No. 70-5388)

No details yet.

Love v. Pullman Co. (No. 70-5033)

No details yet.

Lynch v. Household Finance Corp. (No. 70-5058)

No details yet.

Mancusi v. Stubbs (No. 71-237)

No details yet.

Mayer v. City Of Chicago (No. 70-5040)

No details yet.

Mcclanahan v. Morauer & Hartzell, Inc. (No. 70-5097)

No details yet.

Mcneil v. Director, Patuxent Institution (No. 71-5144)

No details yet.

Miller v. California (No. 70-73)

Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of "adult" material, was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. Some unwilling recipients of Miller's brochures complained to the police, initiating the legal proceedings.

Milton v. Wainwright (No. 70-5012)

No details yet.

Mitchum v. Foster (No. 70-27)

No details yet.

Moore v. Illinois (No. 69-5001)

No details yet.

Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis (No. 70-75)

K. Leroy Irvis, a black man who was a guest of a white member of the Moose Lodge No. 107, was refused service at the club's dining room because of his race. The bylaws of the Lodge limited membership to white male Caucasians. Irvis challenged the club's refusal to serve him, arguing that the action of the Pennsylvania liquor board issuing the Lodge a license made the club's discrimination "state action."

Morrissey v. Brewer (No. 71-5103)

No details yet.

Murel v. Baltimore City Criminal Court (No. 70-5276)

No details yet.

Nebraska v. Iowa (No. 17 ORIG)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Burns Security Services (No. 71-123)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co. (No. 70-93)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Plasterers' Union (No. 70-63)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Scrivener (No. 70-267)

No details yet.

Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Nemitz (No. 70-97)

No details yet.

North Carolina v. Rice (No. 70-77)

No details yet.

Operating Engineers v. Flair Builders, Inc. (No. 71-41)

No details yet.

Papachristou v. City Of Jacksonville (No. 70-5030)

No details yet.

Parisi v. Davidson (No. 70-91)

No details yet.

Pennsylvania v. New York (No. 40 ORIG)

No details yet.

Perry v. Sindermann (No. 70-36)

No details yet.

Peters v. Kiff (No. 71-5078)

No details yet.

Picard v. Connor (No. 70-96)

No details yet.

Pipefitters v. United States (No. 70-74)

No details yet.

Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley (No. 70-87)

Chicago adopted an ordinance prohibiting picketing within 150 feet of a school during school hours; the law made an exception for peaceful labor picketing. Mosley had been picketing near a public high school; he was protesting "black discrimination." Mosley sought a declaration that the ordinance was unconstitutional.

Port Of Portland v. United States (No. 70-31)

No details yet.

Rabe v. Washington (No. 71-247)

No details yet.

Reed v. Reed (No. 70-4)

The Idaho Probate Code specified that "males must be preferred to females" in appointing administrators of estates. After the death of their adopted son, both Sally and Cecil Reed sought to be named the administrator of their son's estate (the Reeds were separated). According to the Probate Code, Cecil was appointed administrator and Sally challenged the law in court.

Reliance Electric Co. v. Emerson Electric Co. (No. 70-79)

No details yet.

Richardson v. Belcher (No. 70-53)

No details yet.

Richardson v. Wright (No. 70-161)

No details yet.

Roe v. Wade (No. 70-18)

Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent -- Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall.

Roudebush v. Hartke (No. 70-66)

No details yet.

S & E Contractors, Inc. v. United States (No. 70-88)

No details yet.

Santobello v. New York (No. 70-98)

No details yet.

Sarno v. Illinois Crime Comm'n (No. 70-7)

No details yet.

Schilb v. Kuebel (No. 70-90)

No details yet.

Schneble v. Florida (No. 68-5009)

No details yet.

Schneble v. Florida (none) (No. None)

No details yet.

SEC v. Medical Committee For Human Rights (No. 70-61)

No details yet.

Shadwick v. City Of Tampa (No. 71-5445)

No details yet.

Sierra Club v. Morton (No. 70-34)

No details yet.

Smith v. Florida (No. 70-5055)

No details yet.

Socialist Labor Party v. Gilligan (No. 70-21)

No details yet.

Stanley v. Illinois (No. 70-5014)

No details yet.

Strait v. Laird (No. 71-83)

No details yet.

Supt. Of Insurance v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co. (No. 70-60)

No details yet.

Swarb v. Lennox (No. 70-6)

No details yet.

The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. (No. 71-322)

No details yet.

Townsend v. Swank (No. 70-5021)

No details yet.

Trbovich v. Mine Workers (No. 71-119)

No details yet.

United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels Of Film (No. 70-2)

No details yet.

United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Steel (No. 71-227)

No details yet.

United States v. Bass (No. 70-71)

No details yet.

United States v. Biswell (No. 71-81)

No details yet.

United States v. Brewster (No. 70-45)

No details yet.

United States v. Byrum (No. 71-308)

No details yet.

United States v. Campos-Serrano (No. 70-46)

No details yet.

United States v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc. (No. 70-72)

No details yet.

United States v. Generes (No. 70-28)

No details yet.

United States v. Louisiana (No. 9 ORIG)

No details yet.

United States v. Marion (No. 70-19)

No details yet.

United States v. Midwest Video Corp. (No. 71-506)

No details yet.

United States v. Mississippi Chemical Corp. (No. 70-52)

No details yet.

United States v. Orito (No. 70-69)

No details yet.

United States v. Scotland Neck Bd. Of Educ. (No. 70-130)

No details yet.

United States v. Topco Associates (No. 70-82)

No details yet.

United States v. Tucker (No. 70-86)

No details yet.

United States v. U.S. District Court (No. 70-153)

Investigating three people it suspected of conspiring to destroy government property and bombing a Central Intelligence Agency office, officials used electronic surveillance to record suspects' conversations. The wiretapping was conducted without a search warrant.

Vermont v. New York (No. 50 ORIG)

No details yet.

Victory Carriers, Inc. v. Law (No. 70-54)

No details yet.

Washington v. General Motors Corp. (No. 45 ORIG)

No details yet.

Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (No. 70-5112)

No details yet.

Willis v. Prudential Insurance Company Of America (No. 70-5344)

No details yet.

Wilwording v. Swenson (No. 70-5308)

No details yet.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (No. 70-110)

Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, both members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public schools until age 16. The three parents refused to send their children to such schools after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs.

Wright v. Council Of City Of Emporia (No. 70-188)

No details yet.

Younger v. Gilmore (No. 70-9)

No details yet.

Zicarelli v. New Jersey Investigation Comm'n (No. 69-4)

No details yet.