The Oyez Project: 1973 Term Decisions

Air Pollution Variance Bd. v. Western Alfalfa (No. 73-690)

No details yet.

Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. (No. 72-5847)

No details yet.

Allee v. Medrano (No. 72-1125)

No details yet.

American Party Of Texas v. White (No. 72-887)

No details yet.

American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah (No. 72-1195)

No details yet.

Anderson v. United States (No. 73-346)

No details yet.

Arnett v. Kennedy (No. 72-1118)

May the federal government dismiss a nonprobationary employee without a trial-type preremoval hearing? Must the federal government provide sufficiently precise guidelines as to what kind of speech might be made the basis for a removal action?

In a plurality opinion written by Justice William H. Rehnquist, the court held that the procedures established for the purpose of determining whether there is "cause" for Kennedy's dismissal satisfied the requirements of procedural due process. The court also held that standard of employment protection imposed by was not impermissibly vague or overbroad in its regulation of the speech of federal employees. The statute in question was not unconstitutional on its face.

Baker v. Gold Seal Liquors (No. 73-804)

No details yet.

Bangor Punta Operations v. Bangor & A. R. Co. (No. 73-718)

No details yet.

Beasley v. Food Fair Of North Carolina (No. 72-1597)

No details yet.

Bellis v. United States (No. 73-190)

No details yet.

Blackledge v. Perry (No. 72-1660)

No details yet.

Bob Jones University v. Simon (No. 72-1470)

No details yet.

Bonelli Cattle Co. v. Arizona (No. 72-397)

No details yet.

Bradley v. Richmond School Board (No. 72-1322)

No details yet.

Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. (No. 73-157)

No details yet.

California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz (No. 72-985)

No details yet.

Cardwell v. Lewis (No. 72-1603)

No details yet.

Cass v. United States (No. 73-604)

No details yet.

Central Tablet Mfg. Co. v. United States (No. 73-593)

No details yet.

Christian v. New York Department Of Labor (No. 72-5704)

No details yet.

Cleveland Board Of Education v. Lafleur (No. 72-777)

No details yet.

Codispoti v. Pennsylvania (No. 73-5615)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. "Americans United" Inc. (No. 72-1371)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co. (No. 73-263)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. Nat. Alfalfa Dehydrating (No. 73-9)

No details yet.

Communist Party Of Indiana v. Whitcomb (No. 72-1040)

No details yet.

Cooper Stevedoring Co. v. Kopke, Inc. (No. 73-726)

No details yet.

Corning Glass Works v. Brennan (No. 73-29)

No details yet.

Cupp v. Naughten (No. 72-1148)

No details yet.

Curtis v. Loether (No. 72-1035)

No details yet.

Davis v. Alaska (No. 72-5794)

No details yet.

Davis v. United States (No. 72-1454)

No details yet.

DeFunis v. Odegaard (No. 73-235)

Was the case in question moot and therefore outside the scope of judicial review?

In a 5-4 per curiam opinion, the Court held that because the University of Washington Law School had agreed to allow DeFunis to enroll and to earn a diploma, the case in question was moot. DeFunis would be able to complete his legal studies irrespective of any Supreme Court decision. The controversy between parties had thus "clearly ceased to be 'definite and concrete' and no longer 'touch[ed] the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.'"

Dillard v. Industrial Comm'n (No. 73-5412)

No details yet.

Donnelly v. Dechristoforo (No. 72-1570)

No details yet.

Dorszynski v. United States (No. 73-5284)

No details yet.

Edelman v. Jordan (No. 72-1410)

No details yet.

Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin (No. 73-203)

No details yet.

Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co. (No. 72-671)

No details yet.

F. D. Rich Co., v. Industrial Lumber Co. (No. 72-1382)

No details yet.

Falk v. Brennan (No. 72-844)

No details yet.

Florida Power & Light v. Electrical Workers (No. 73-556)

No details yet.

Foley v. Blair & Co. (No. 72-1154)

No details yet.

FPC v. New England Power Co. (No. 72-1162)

No details yet.

FPC v. Texaco Inc. (No. 72-1490)

No details yet.

Fuller v. Oregon (No. 73-5280)

No details yet.

Gateway Coal Co. v. Mine Workers (No. 72-782)

No details yet.

Geduldig v. Aiello (No. 73-640)

No details yet.

Gerstein v. Pugh (No. 73-477)

No details yet.

Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. (No. 72-617)

Does the First Amendment allow a newspaper or broadcaster to assert defamatory falsehoods about an individual who is neither a public official nor a public figure?

The Court reversed the lower court decision and held that Gertz's rights had been violated. Justice Powell argued that the application of the New York Times v. Sullivan standard in this case was inappropriate because Gertz was neither a public official nor a public figure. In the context of the opinion, Powell advanced many lines of reasoning to establish that ordinary citizens should be allowed more protection from libelous statements than individuals in the public eye. However, continued Powell, the actual malice standard did not lose all significance in cases involving ordinary citizens as he advised states to use it in assessing claims for punitive damages by citizens suing for libel.

Gilmore v. City Of Montgomery (No. 72-1517)

No details yet.

Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB (No. 72-702)

No details yet.

Gooding v. United States (No. 72-6902)

No details yet.

Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters (No. 72-1566)

No details yet.

Gustafson v. Florida (No. 71-1669)

No details yet.

Hagans v. Lavine (No. 72-6476)

No details yet.

Hamling v. United States (No. 73-507)

No details yet.

Hernandez v. Veterans' Administration (No. 72-700)

No details yet.

Hess v. Indiana (No. 73-5290)

No details yet.

Holder v. Banks (No. 73-841)

No details yet.

Howard Johnson Co. v. Hotel Employees (No. 73-631)

No details yet.

Huddleston v. United States (No. 72-1076)

No details yet.

Jenkins v. Georgia (No. 73-557)

Did the manager's conviction violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

A unanimous Court held that the Georgia Supreme Court misapplied the obscenity test announced in Miller v. California (1973). Justice Rehnquist argued that Miller did not give juries "unbridled discretion" to determine what is patently offensive. Only material that displays "hard core sexual conduct" is prohibited. Since "Carnal Knowledge" did not contain scenes of that nature it merited constitutional protection.

Jimenez v. Weinberger (No. 72-6609)

No details yet.

Johnson v. Robison (No. 72-1297)

No details yet.

Kahn v. Shevin (No. 73-78)

No details yet.

Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp. (No. 73-187)

No details yet.

Kokoszka v. Belford (No. 73-5265)

No details yet.

Kosydar v. National Cash Register Co. (No. 73-629)

No details yet.

Kusper v. Pontikes (No. 71-1631)

No details yet.

Lau v. Nichols (No. 72-6520)

No details yet.

Lefkowitz v. Turley (No. 72-331)

No details yet.

Lehman Brothers v. Schein (No. 73-439)

No details yet.

Lehman v. City Of Shaker Heights (No. 73-328)

No details yet.

Letter Carriers v. Austin (No. 72-1180)

No details yet.

Lewis v. City Of New Orleans (No. 72-6156)

No details yet.

Lubin v. Panish (No. 71-6852)

No details yet.

Marshall v. United States (No. 72-5881)

No details yet.

Mayor v. Educational Equality League (No. 72-1264)

No details yet.

Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County (No. 72-847)

No details yet.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Ware (No. 72-312)

No details yet.

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (No. 73-797)

No details yet.

Michigan v. Tucker (No. 73-482)

No details yet.

Milliken v. Bradley (No. 73-434)

Did federal courts have the authority to impose a multi-district desegregation plan on schools outside the Detroit area?

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that "[w]ith no showing of significant violation by the 53 outlying school districts and no evidence of any interdistrict violation or effect," the district court's remedy was "wholly impermissible" and not justified by Brown v. Board of Education. The Court noted that desegregation, "in the sense of dismantling a dual school system," did not require "any particular racial balance in each 'school, grade or classroom.'" The Court also emphasized the importance of local control over the operation of schools.

Mississippi v. Arkansas (No. 48 ORIG)

No details yet.

Mississippi v. Arkansas (No. 48 ORIG)

No details yet.

Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co. (No. 72-6160)

No details yet.

Mobil Oil Corp. v. FPC (No. 73-437)

No details yet.

Morton v. Mancari (No. 73-362)

No details yet.

Morton v. Ruiz (No. 72-1052)

No details yet.

National Cable Television Assn. v. U.S. (No. 72-948)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co. (No. 72-1598)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Food Store Employees (No. 73-370)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Magnavox Co. (No. 72-1637)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Savair Mfg. Co. (No. 72-1231)

No details yet.

North Dakota Pharmacy Bd. v. Snyder's Stores (No. 72-1176)

No details yet.

Norwell v. City Of Cincinnati (No. 72-1366)

No details yet.

O'brien v. Skinner (No. 72-1058)

No details yet.

O'shea v. Littleton (No. 72-953)

No details yet.

Oneida Indian Nation v. County Of Oneida (No. 72-851)

No details yet.

Parker v. Levy (No. 73-206)

No details yet.

Paschall v. Christie-Stewart, Inc. (No. 72-922)

No details yet.

Passenger Corp. v. Passengers Assn. (No. 72-1289)

No details yet.

Patterson v. Warner (No. 72-5839)

No details yet.

Pell v. Procunier (No. 73-918)

No details yet.

Pernell v. Southall Realty (No. 72-6041)

No details yet.

Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp. (No. 73-582)

No details yet.

Procunier v. Martinez (No. 72-1465)

No details yet.

Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Co. (No. 72-822)

No details yet.

Richardson v. Ramirez (No. 72-1589)

No details yet.

Ross v. Moffitt (No. 73-786)

No details yet.

Sampson v. Murray (No. 72-403)

No details yet.

Saxbe v. Washington Post Co. (No. 73-1265)

No details yet.

Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co. (No. 73-781)

No details yet.

Scheuer v. Rhodes (No. 72-914)

No details yet.

Schlesinger v. Reservists To Stop The War (No. 72-1188)

No details yet.

Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet (No. 72-1019)

No details yet.

Secretary Of The Navy v. Avrech (No. 72-1713)

No details yet.

Shea v. Vialpando (No. 72-1513)

No details yet.

Smith v. Goguen (No. 72-1254)

No details yet.

Snow v. Commissioner (No. 73-641)

No details yet.

Speight v. Slaton (No. 72-1557)

No details yet.

Spence v. Washington (No. 72-1690)

No details yet.

Spomer v. Littleton (No. 72-955)

No details yet.

Steffel v. Thompson (No. 72-5581)

No details yet.

Storer v. Brown (No. 72-812)

No details yet.

Super Tire Engineering Co. v. Mccorkle (No. 72-1554)

No details yet.

Taylor v. Hayes (No. 73-473)

No details yet.

Teleprompter Corp. v. Cbs (No. 72-1628)

No details yet.

United States v. Calandra (No. 72-734)

No details yet.

United States v. Chavez (No. 72-1319)

No details yet.

United States v. Connecticut National Bank (No. 73-767)

No details yet.

United States v. Edwards (No. 73-88)

No details yet.

United States v. General Dynamics Corp. (No. 72-402)

No details yet.

United States v. Giordano (No. 72-1057)

No details yet.

United States v. Kahn (No. 72-1328)

No details yet.

United States v. Marine Bancorporation (No. 73-38)

No details yet.

United States v. Matlock (No. 72-1355)

No details yet.

United States v. Maze (No. 72-1168)

No details yet.

United States v. Richardson (No. 72-885)

Does a federal taxpayer have standing to force the government to disclose expenditures of the CIA?

The Court held that Richardson did not have standing to sue. Using the two-pronged standing test of Flast v. Cohen (1968), Chief Justice Burger found that there was no "logical nexus between the status asserted [by Richardson as a taxpayer] and the claim sought to be adjudicated." It was clear to Burger that Richardson was not "a proper and appropriate party to invoke federal judicial power" on this issue.

United States v. Robinson (No. 72-936)

Did the officer's search violate the Fourth Amendment?

The Court upheld the search. Distinguishing between searches done to discover concealed weapons and those conducted coextensive with an arrest, Justice Rehnquist argued since the officer did not conduct the search in an abusive or extreme manner, and because he acted consistent with the authority vested in a police officer when making an arrest, his actions were legitimate.

Village Of Belle Terre v. Boraas (No. 73-191)

No details yet.

Warden v. Marrero (No. 73-831)

No details yet.

Washington Game Dept. v. Puyallup Tribe (No. 72-481)

No details yet.

Wheeler v. Barrera (No. 73-62)

No details yet.

William E. Arnold Co. v. Carpenters (No. 73-466)

No details yet.

Windward Shipping v. American Radio Assn. (No. 72-1061)

No details yet.

Wingo v. Wedding (No. 73-846)

No details yet.

Wolff v. Mcdonnell (No. 73-679)

No details yet.

Zahn v. International Paper Co. (No. 72-888)

No details yet.