The Oyez Project: 1975 Term

A & P Tea Co. v. Cottrell (No. 74-1148)

No details yet.

Abbott Labs. v. Portland Retail Druggists (No. 74-1274)

No details yet.

Alamo Land & Cattle Co. v. Arizona (No. 74-125)

No details yet.

Aldinger v. Howard (No. 74-6521)

No details yet.

American Foreign S. S. Co. v. Matise (No. 74-966)

No details yet.

American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Starnes (No. 74-1481)

No details yet.

Andresen v. Maryland (No. 74-1646)

No details yet.

Barrett v. United States (No. 74-5566)

No details yet.

Baxter v. Palmigiano (No. 74-1187)

No details yet.

Beckwith v. United States (No. 74-1243)

No details yet.

Bellotti v. Baird (No. 75-73)

No details yet.

Bishop v. Wood (No. 74-1303)

No details yet.

Brown v. GSA (No. 74-768)

No details yet.

Bryan v. Itasca County (No. 75-5027)

No details yet.

Buckley v. Valeo (No. 75-436)

In the wake of the Watergate affair, Congress attempted to ferret out corruption in political campaigns by restricting financial contributions to candidates. Among other things, the law set limits on the amount of money an individual could contribute to a single campaign and it required reporting of contributions above a certain threshold amount. The Federal Election Commission was created to enforce the statute.

Buffalo Forge Co. v. Steelworkers (No. 75-339)

No details yet.

Burrell v. Mcray (No. 75-44)

No details yet.

Cantor v. Detroit Edison Co. (No. 75-122)

No details yet.

Cappaert v. United States (No. 74-1107)

No details yet.

Carey v. Sugar (No. 74-858)

No details yet.

Chandler v. Roudebush (No. 74-1599)

No details yet.

City Of Charlotte v. Firefighters (No. 75-250)

No details yet.

Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. U.S. (No. 74-940)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. Shapiro (No. 74-744)

No details yet.

Dann v. Johnston (No. 74-1033)

No details yet.

De Canas v. Bica (No. 74-882)

No details yet.

Dept. Of Air Force v. Rose (No. 74-489)

No details yet.

Doyle v. Ohio (No. 75-5014)

No details yet.

Drew Municipal School Dist. v. Andrews (No. 74-1318)

No details yet.

East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall (No. 73-861)

No details yet.

Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc. (No. 74-1563)

No details yet.

Elrod v. Burns (No. 74-1520)

No details yet.

Epa v. State Water Resources Control Board (No. 74-1435)

No details yet.

Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder (No. 74-1042)

No details yet.

Estelle v. Williams (No. 74-676)

No details yet.

Examining Board v. Flores De Otero (No. 74-1267)

No details yet.

Fea v. Algonquin Sng, Inc. (No. 75-382)

No details yet.

Fisher v. United States (No. 74-18)

No details yet.

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (No. 75-251)

No details yet.

Flint Ridge Dev. Co. v. Scenic Rivers Assn. (No. 75-510)

No details yet.

Foremost-Mckesson v. Provident Securities (No. 74-742)

No details yet.

FPC v. Conway Corp. (No. 75-342)

No details yet.

FPC v. Moss (No. 74-883)

No details yet.

FPC v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. (No. 75-584)

No details yet.

Francis v. Henderson (No. 74-5808)

No details yet.

Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co. (No. 74-728)

No details yet.

Garner v. United States (No. 74-100)

No details yet.

Geders v. United States (No. 74-5968)

No details yet.

General Electric Co. v. Gilbert (No. 74-1589)

No details yet.

Goldberg v. United States (No. 74-6293)

No details yet.

Greer v. Spock (No. 74-848)

No details yet.

Gregg v. Georgia (No. 74-6257)

A jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery and murder and sentenced him to death. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence except as to its imposition for the robbery conviction. Gregg challenged his remaining death sentence for murder, claiming that his capital sentence was a "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

This case is one of the five "Death Penalty Cases" along with Jurek v. Texas, Roberts v. Louisiana, Proffitt v. Florida, and Woodson v. North Carolina.

Hampton v. United States (No. 74-5822)

No details yet.

Hancock v. Train (No. 74-220)

No details yet.

Henderson v. Morgan (No. 74-1529)

No details yet.

Hills v. Gautreaux (No. 74-1047)

No details yet.

Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight (No. 74-1025)

No details yet.

Hortonville Dist. v. Hortonville Ed. Assn. (No. 74-1606)

No details yet.

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees (No. 74-1452)

No details yet.

Hudgens v. NLRB (No. 74-773)

No details yet.

Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. (No. 74-1607)

No details yet.

Hynes v. Mayor Of Oradell (No. 74-1329)

No details yet.

Imbler v. Pachtman (No. 74-5435)

No details yet.

Jurek v. Texas (No. 75-5394)

After his conviction by a Texas trial court for murder and the imposition of the death penalty, Jurek challenged the constitutionality of both his death sentence, alleging it was a "cruel and unusual" punishment, and the state's capital-sentencing procedure, alleging it would result in arbitrary and "freakish" imposition of the death penalty.

This case is one of the five "Death Penalty Cases" along with Gregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Roberts v. Louisiana, and Woodson v. North Carolina.

Kelley v. Johnson (No. 74-1269)

No details yet.

Kerr v. United States District Court (No. 74-1023)

No details yet.

Kleppe v. Delta Mining, Inc. (No. 74-521)

No details yet.

Kleppe v. New Mexico (No. 74-1488)

No details yet.

Kleppe v. Sierra Club (No. 75-552)

No details yet.

Lavine v. Milne (No. 74-1137)

No details yet.

Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wetzel (No. 74-1245)

No details yet.

Ludwig v. Massachusetts (No. 75-377)

No details yet.

Machinists v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Comm'n (No. 75-185)

No details yet.

Mass. Board of Retirement v. Murgia (No. 74-1044)

Robert Murgia, although he was in excellent physical and mental health, was forced to retire at age fifty according to state law. Murgia had been a uniformed officer in the state police force. Murgia successfully challenged the mandatory retirement law in district court.

Mathews v. Eldridge (No. 74-204)

George Eldridge, who had originally been deemed disabled due to chronic anxiety and back strain, was informed by letter that his disability status was ending and that his benefits would be terminated. Social Security Administration procedures provided for ample notification and an evidentiary hearing before a final determination was made, but Eldridge's benefits were cut off until that hearing could take place. Eldridge challenged the termination of his benefits without such a hearing.

Mathews v. Lucas (No. 75-88)

No details yet.

Mathews v. Weber (No. 74-850)

No details yet.

Mcdonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co. (No. 75-260)

No details yet.

Mckinney v. Alabama (No. 74-532)

No details yet.

Meachum v. Fano (No. 75-252)

No details yet.

Michelin Tire Corporation v. Wages (No. 74-1396)

The Michelin Tire Corporation (MTC) operated a warehouse in Gwinnett County, Georgia, in which products imported from France and Nova Scotia were stored for later distribution. The County levied a nondiscriminatory ad valorem property tax on the goods (a percent of the property's value). MTC claimed that the contents of the warehouse were constitutionally free from state taxation because they were in their original containers. The county declared that the products were subject to the tax because they had been sorted and arranged for sale.

Michigan v. Mosley (No. 74-653)

No details yet.

Moe v. Salish & Kootenai Tribes (No. 74-1656)

No details yet.

Montanye v. Haymes (No. 74-520)

No details yet.

NAACP v. FPC (No. 74-1608)

No details yet.

Nader v. Allegheny Airlines (No. 75-455)

No details yet.

National Coal Operators' Assn. v. Kleppe (No. 73-2066)

No details yet.

Nebraska Press Assoc. v. Stuart (No. 75-817)

A Nebraska state trial judge, presiding over a widely publicized murder trial, entered an order restraining members of the press from publishing or broadcasting accounts of confessions made by the accused to the police. The judge felt that this measure was necessary to guarantee a fair trial to the accused.

New Hampshire v. Maine (No. 64 ORIG)

No details yet.

New Orleans v. Dukes (No. 74-775)

No details yet.

North v. Russell (No. 74-1409)

No details yet.

Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hollowbreast (No. 75-145)

No details yet.

Norton v. Mathews (No. 74-6212)

No details yet.

Ohio v. Gallagher (No. 74-492)

No details yet.

Oil Workers v. Mobil Oil Corp. (No. 74-1254)

No details yet.

Pasadena City Bd. Of Education v. Spangler (No. 75-164)

No details yet.

Paul v. Davis (No. 74-891)

A flyer identifying "active shoplifters" was distributed to merchants in the Louisville, Kentucky area. The flyer included a photograph of Edward C. Davis III, who had been arrestedon a shoplifting charge. When the charge was dismissed, Davis brought an action against Edgar Paul, the Louisville chief of police. Davis alleged that the distribution of the flyer had stigmatized him and deprived him of his constitutional rights.

Pennsylvania v. New Jersey (No. 68 ORIG)

No details yet.

Planned Parenthood Of Missouri v. Danforth (No. 74-1151)

No details yet.

Proffitt v. Florida (No. 75-5706)

Following his Florida conviction for first-degree murder and the imposition of the death penalty, Proffitt challenged the constitutionality of both his death sentence, alleging it was a "cruel and unusual" punishment, and Florida's capital-sentencing procedure, alleging is was arbitrary and capricious insofar as it permitted judges rather than juries to act as sole sentencing authorities.

This case is one of the five "Death Penalty Cases" along with Gregg v. Georgia, Jurek v. Texas, Roberts v. Louisiana, and Woodson v. North Carolina.

Quinn v. Muscare (No. 75-130)

No details yet.

Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co. (No. 75-268)

No details yet.

Ristaino v. Ross (No. 74-1216)

No details yet.

Rizzo v. Goode (No. 74-942)

No details yet.

Roberts v. Louisiana (No. 75-5844)

Following his conviction for first-degree murder, and subsequent imposition of a death sentence, Roberts challenged the constitutionality of Louisiana's death penalty scheme. This scheme mandated the death penalty's imposition, regardless of any mercy recommendation, whenever the jury found that the defendant demonstrated a specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm while in the commission of at least one of five different narrowly defined types of homicide. The sentencing scheme also required juries, in all first-degree murder cases, to be instructed on the lesser charges of manslaughter and second degree murder even if no evidence existed to support such verdicts.

This case is one of the five "Death Penalty Cases" along with Gregg v. Georgia, Jurek v. Texas, Proffitt v. Florida, and Woodson v. North Carolina.

Roemer v. Maryland Public Works Bd. (No. 74-730)

No details yet.

Runyon v. Mccrary (No. 75-62)

No details yet.

Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc. (No. 75-110)

No details yet.

Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich (No. 75-292)

No details yet.

Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org. (No. 74-1124)

No details yet.

Singleton v. Wulff (No. 74-1393)

No details yet.

South Dakota v. Opperman (No. 75-76)

No details yet.

Stone v. Powell (No. 74-1055)

Lloyd Powell was convicted of murder by a California court. Powell sought relief in federal district court by filing a writ of federal habeas corpus. Powell claimed that the search that uncovered the murder weapon was unlawful and that the evidence should have been inadmissible at trial. This case was decided together with Wolf v. Rice.

Tennessee v. Dunlap (No. 75-95)

No details yet.

Texas v. Louisiana (No. 36 ORIG)

No details yet.

Texas v. White (No. 75-124)

No details yet.

Thermtron Products, Inc., v. Hermansdorfer (No. 74-206)

No details yet.

Time, Inc. v. Firestone (No. 74-944)

No details yet.

Train v. Colorado Pub. Int. Research Group (No. 74-1270)

No details yet.

Transamerican Freight v. Brada Miller (No. 74-54)

No details yet.

Tsc Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. (No. 74-1471)

No details yet.

Union Electric Co. v. Epa (No. 74-1542)

No details yet.

United States v. Agurs (No. 75-491)

No details yet.

United States v. Bornstein (No. 74-712)

No details yet.

United States v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. (No. 75-420)

No details yet.

United States v. Dinitz (No. 74-928)

No details yet.

United States v. Foster Lumber Co. (No. 74-799)

No details yet.

United States v. Gaddis (No. 74-1141)

No details yet.

United States v. Hopkins (No. 75-246)

No details yet.

United States v. Janis (No. 74-958)

No details yet.

United States v. Maccollom (No. 74-1487)

No details yet.

United States v. Mandujano (No. 74-754)

No details yet.

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (No. 74-1560)

Martinez-Fuerte and others were charged with transporting illegal Mexican aliens. They were stopped at a routine fixed checkpoint for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants on a major highway not far from the Mexican border.

United States v. Miller (No. 74-1179)

No details yet.

United States v. Moore (No. 74-687)

No details yet.

United States v. Moore (No. 74-759)

No details yet.

United States v. Orleans (No. 75-328)

No details yet.

United States v. Powell (No. 74-884)

No details yet.

United States v. Santana (No. 75-19)

Using marked money, police officers made an undercover heroin buy from a third party who, upon taking money from the officers, entered "Mom Santana's" house and emerged with heroin. Officers then arrested the third party and returned to Santana's house where they identified themselves as police officers, entered the house after Santana fled into it from the porch, and, after ordering her to empty her pockets, discovered some of the marked money. The search was done without a warrant.

United States v. Testan (No. 74-753)

No details yet.

United States v. United Continental Tuna (No. 74-869)

No details yet.

United States v. Watson (No. 74-538)

No details yet.

Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co. (No. 74-1302)

No details yet.

Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Consumer Council (No. 74-895)

Acting on behalf of prescription drug consumers, the Virginia Citizens Consumer Council challenged a Virginia statute that declared it unprofessional conduct for licensed pharmacists to advertise their prescription drug prices. On appeal from an adverse ruling by a three-judge District Court panel, the Supreme Court granted the Virginia State Board of Pharmacy review.

Washington v. Davis (No. 74-1492)

After the applications of two blacks were rejected by the District of Columbia Police Department, the two men filed suit against Mayor Walter E. Washington. The men alleged that the Department's recruiting procedures, including a written personnel test, discriminated against racial minorities. They claimed that the test was unrelated to job performance and excluded a disproportionate number of black applicants.

Woodson v. North Carolina (No. 75-5491)

The state of North Carolina enacted legislation that made the death penalty mandatory for all convicted first-degree murderers. Consequently, when James Woodson was found guilty of such an offense, he was automatically sentenced to death. Woodson challenged the law, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of North Carolina.

This case is one of the five "Death Penalty Cases" along with Gregg v. Georgia, Jurek v. Texas, Proffitt v. Florida, and Roberts v. Louisiana.

Youakim v. Miller (No. 73-6935)

No details yet.

Young v. American Mini Theatres (No. 75-312)

No details yet.