The Oyez Project: 1978 Term

Addington v. Texas (No. 77-5992)

No details yet.

Alexander v. U.S. Dept. Of HUD (No. 77-874)

No details yet.

Ambach v. Norwick (No. 76-808)

No details yet.

Andrus v. Sierra Club (No. 78-625)

No details yet.

Arizona Public Service Co. v. Snead (No. 77-1810)

No details yet.

Arkansas v. Sanders (No. 77-1497)

Local police in Little Rock, Arkansas received a tip that an individual would be arriving at the airport with a suitcase containing a significant quantity of marijuana. Upon arriving, the suspect retrieved his suitcase and left in a taxi. The police officers pursued and stopped the taxi, and ordered the driver to open the trunk which revealed the suitcase in question. The police opened the suitcase without obtaining permission from its owner and found nearly ten pounds of marijuana.

Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil Co. (No. 77-1413)

No details yet.

Babbitt v. Farm Workers (No. 78-225)

No details yet.

Baker v. Mccollan (No. 78-752)

No details yet.

Barry v. Barchi (No. 77-803)

No details yet.

Bell v. Wolfish (No. 77-1829)

A class action lawsuit challenged the legality of conditions facing pretrial detainees in a New York City correctional facility. Petitioners claimed that double-bunking, restrictions on reading materials that inmates were allowed to receive, and required cavity searches and shakedowns amounted to punishment before conviction.

Bellotti v. Baird (No. 78-329)

A Massachusetts law required minors to gain parental consent before having an abortion. However, if either or both of the parents refused, a judge of the superior court could allow a minor to have the procedure "for good cause shown."

Board Of Governors v. First Lincolnwood Corp. (No. 77-832)

No details yet.

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Cbs (No. 77-1578)

No details yet.

Brown v. Felsen (No. 78-58)

No details yet.

Brown v. Texas (No. 77-6673)

No details yet.

Burch v. Louisiana (No. 78-90)

Burch was found guilty by a nonunanimous six-member jury of showing obscene films. The court imposed a suspended prison sentence of two consecutive seven-month terms and fined him $1,000.

Burks v. Lasker (No. 77-1724)

No details yet.

Butner v. United States (No. 77-1410)

No details yet.

Caban v. Mohammed (No. 77-6431)

No details yet.

Califano v. Aznavorian (No. 77-991)

No details yet.

Califano v. Boles (No. 78-808)

No details yet.

Califano v. Westcott (No. 78-437)

No details yet.

Califano v. Yamasaki (No. 77-1511)

No details yet.

California v. Arizona (No. 78 ORIG)

No details yet.

Cannon v. University Of Chicago (No. 77-926)

No details yet.

Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org. (No. 77-719)

No details yet.

Chrysler Corp. v. Brown (No. 77-922)

No details yet.

Colautti v. Franklin (No. 77-891)

No details yet.

Columbus Board Of Education v. Penick (No. 78-610)

No details yet.

Corbitt v. New Jersey (No. 77-5903)

No details yet.

County Of Los Angeles v. Davis (No. 77-1553)

No details yet.

Dalia v. United States (No. 77-1722)

No details yet.

Davis v. Passman (No. 78-5072)

Davis, a former employee of Louisiana Congressman Otto Passman, charged Passman with violating her Fifth Amendment right to due process. Prior to the time of her firing Passman wrote a note explaining that, even though he knew Davis as an "able, energetic, and a hard, hard worker", he preferred a man to work in her position. The Court of Appeals ruled that Davis had no civil remedies under the Fifth Amendment due process requirement.

Dayton Board Of Education v. Brinkman (No. 78-627)

No details yet.

Delaware v. Prouse (No. 77-1571)

A Delaware patrolman stopped William Prouse's car to make a routine check of his driver's license and vehicle registration. The officer had not observed any traffic violation or suspicious conduct on the part of Prouse. After stopping the car, the officer uncovered marijuana. The marijuana was later used to indict Prouse.

Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB (No. 77-968)

No details yet.

Director, Workers' Comp. Progs. v. Rasmussen (No. 77-1465)

No details yet.

Dougherty County Bd. Of Ed. v. White (No. 77-120)

No details yet.

Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest (No. 77-1547)

No details yet.

Dunaway v. New York (No. 78-5066)

No details yet.

Dunn v. United States (No. 77-6949)

No details yet.

Duren v. Missouri (No. 77-6067)

No details yet.

Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatl. (No. 78-479)

No details yet.

Electrical Workers v. Foust (No. 78-38)

No details yet.

Fare v. Michael C. (No. 78-334)

No details yet.

FCC v. Midwest Video Corp. (No. 77-1575)

No details yet.

Federal Open Market Committee v. Merrill (No. 77-1387)

No details yet.

Ferc v. Pennzoil Producing Co. (No. 77-648)

No details yet.

FERC v. Shell Oil Co. (No. 77-1652)

No details yet.

Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB (No. 77-1806)

No details yet.

Friedman v. Rogers (No. 77-1163)

No details yet.

Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (No. 77-1301)

Two suspects charged with murder, robbery, and grand larceny requested that the public be excluded from a pre-trial hearing concerning the admissibility of evidence. They argued that an "unabated buildup" of adverse publicity had jeopardized their ability to receive a fair trial. The request was granted by the judge, and no objections were made at the time. The judge then denied press access to the pre-trial hearing and refused to immediately release the transcript of the proceedings. The case was argued and decided with Marshall, Secretary of Labor v. American Petroleum Institute et al.

Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist. (No. 77-1051)

No details yet.

Gladstone, Realtors v. Village Of Bellwood (No. 77-1493)

No details yet.

Great A & P Tea Co. v. Ftc (No. 77-654)

No details yet.

Great American Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Novotny (No. 78-753)

No details yet.

Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates (No. 78-201)

No details yet.

Group Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Royal Drug Co. (No. 77-952)

No details yet.

Harrah Independent School Dist. v. Martin (No. 78-443)

No details yet.

Helstoski v. Meanor (No. 78-546)

No details yet.

Herbert v. Lando (No. 77-1105)

Anthony Herbert was a retired Army officer who served in Vietnam. While in Vietnam, he accused superior officers of covering up atrocities that American troops had committed. The Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) produced and broadcast a documentary of the petitioner's story. Herbert sued for libel arguing that the program falsely and maliciously portrayed his character, causing him financial loss. In order to prove libel under the "actual malice" standard, Herbert's attorneys deposed Lando as well as the producer and the editor of the documentary, attempting to deduce the editorial decisions that were made during the production of the program.

Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo (No. 77-533)

No details yet.

Holt Civic Club v. Tuscaloosa (No. 77-515)

No details yet.

Hughes v. Oklahoma (No. 77-1439)

No details yet.

Hunter v. Dean (No. 77-6248)

No details yet.

Hutchinson v. Proxmire (No. 78-680)

In early 1975, Senator William Proxmire implemented what he called the "Golden Fleece Award of the Month." The award was given out to governmental agencies which sponsored programs and research that Proxmire found to be a waste of tax dollars. One Golden Fleece went to federal agencies sponsoring the research of Ronald Hutchinson, a behavioral scientist. Proxmire detailed the "nonsense" of Hutchinson's research on the floor of the Senate, in conferences with his staff, and in a newsletter sent to over 100,000 of his constituents. Hutchinson sued for libel, arguing that Proxmire's statements defamed his character and caused him to endure financial loss.

Illinois Elections Bd. v. Socialist Workers Party (No. 77-1248)

No details yet.

Jackson v. Virginia (No. 78-5283)

No details yet.

Japan Line, Ltd. v. County Of Los Angeles (No. 77-1378)

No details yet.

Jones v. Wolf (No. 78-91)

No details yet.

Kentucky v. Whorton (No. 78-749)

No details yet.

Lake Country Estates v. Tahoe Planning Agcy. (No. 77-1327)

No details yet.

Lalli v. Lalli (No. 77-1115)

No details yet.

Leis v. Flynt (No. 77-1618)

No details yet.

Leo Sheep Co. v. United States (No. 77-1686)

No details yet.

Leroy v. Great Western United Corp. (No. 78-759)

No details yet.

Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York (No. 78-511)

No details yet.

Mackey v. Montrym (No. 77-69)

No details yet.

Marchioro v. Chaney (No. 78-647)

No details yet.

Marquette Nat. Bank v. First Of Omaha Corp. (No. 77-1265)

No details yet.

Massachusetts v. White (No. 77-1388)

No details yet.

Michigan v. Defillippo (No. 77-1680)

No details yet.

Michigan v. Doran (No. 77-1202)

No details yet.

Miller v. Youakim (No. 77-742)

No details yet.

Mobile v. Bolden (No. 77-1844)

Wiley L. Bolden and other residents of Mobile, Alabama brought a class action on behalf of all black citizens in Mobile. They argued that the practice of electing the City Commissioners at-large unfairly diluted the voting strength of black citizens. A district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Bolden.

Montana v. United States (No. 77-1134)

No details yet.

Moore v. Sims (No. 78-6)

No details yet.

National Muffler Dealers Assn. v. United States (No. 77-1172)

No details yet.

Nevada v. Hall (No. 77-1337)

No details yet.

New Jersey v. Portash (No. 77-1489)

No details yet.

New Motor Vehicle Bd. Of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co. (No. 77-837)

No details yet.

New York Tel. Co. v. New York Labor Dept. (No. 77-961)

No details yet.

New York Transit Authority v. Beazer (No. 77-1427)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Baptist Hospital, Inc. (No. 78-223)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Catholic Bishop Of Chicago (No. 77-752)

No details yet.

North Carolina v. Butler (No. 78-354)

No details yet.

Orr v. Orr (No. 77-1119)

No details yet.

Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans (No. 78-275)

No details yet.

P. C. Pfeiffer Co. v. Ford (No. 78-425)

No details yet.

Parham v. Hughes (No. 78-3)

No details yet.

Parker v. Randolph (No. 78-99)

No details yet.

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore (No. 77-1305)

No details yet.

Payton v. New York (No. 78-5420)

No details yet.

Personnel Administrator MA v. Feeney (No. 78-233)

A Massachusetts law gave hiring preference to honorably discharged veterans applying for state civil service positions. Feeney, a woman who scored high on certain competitive civil service examinations, was ranked below male veterans who had lower scores.

Quern v. Jordan (No. 77-841)

No details yet.

Rakas v. Illinois (No. 77-5781)

No details yet.

Ramsey v. New York (No. 77-6540)

No details yet.

Reiter v. Sonotone Corp. (No. 78-690)

No details yet.

Rose v. Mitchell (No. 77-1701)

No details yet.

Sandstrom v. Montana (No. 78-5384)

No details yet.

Scott v. Illinois (No. 77-1177)

Scott was convicted in a bench trial of shoplifting and fined $50. The statute applicable to his case set the maximum penalty at a $500 fine and/or one year in jail.

Secy. Of Pub. Welf. v. Institutionalized Juveniles (No. 77-1715)

No details yet.

Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees (No. 78-1223)

No details yet.

Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. (No. 78-482)

A West Virginia statute made it a crime for a newspaper to publish, without approval of juvenile court, the name of any youth charged as a juvenile offender.

Smith v. Maryland (No. 78-5374)

No details yet.

Southeastern Community College v. Davis (No. 78-711)

No details yet.

Southern R. Co. v. Seaboard Allied Milling Corp. (No. 78-575)

No details yet.

Stafford v. Briggs (No. 77-1546)

No details yet.

Teamsters v. Daniel (No. 77-753)

No details yet.

Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner (No. 77-920)

No details yet.

Toll v. Moreno (No. 77-154)

No details yet.

Torres v. Puerto Rico (No. 77-1609)

No details yet.

Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington (No. 78-309)

No details yet.

Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis (No. 77-1645)

No details yet.

Ulster County Court v. Allen (No. 77-1554)

No details yet.

United California Bank v. United States (No. 77-1016)

No details yet.

United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mccombs (No. 78-17)

No details yet.

United States v. 564.54 Acres Of Land (No. 78-488)

No details yet.

United States v. Addonizio (No. 78-156)

No details yet.

United States v. Batchelder (No. 78-776)

No details yet.

United States v. Caceres (No. 76-1309)

No details yet.

United States v. Helstoski (No. 78-349)

No details yet.

United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc. (No. 77-1359)

No details yet.

United States v. Naftalin (No. 78-561)

No details yet.

United States v. Rutherford (No. 78-605)

No details yet.

United States v. Timmreck (No. 78-744)

No details yet.

United Steelworkers of America v. Weber (No. 78-432)

The United Steelworkers of America and the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation implemented an affirmative action-based training program to increase the number of the company's black skilled craft workers. Half of the eligible positions in the training program were reserved for blacks. Weber, who was white, was passed over for the program. Weber claimed that he was the victim of reverse discrimination. These cases (United Steelworkers v. Weber and Kaiser Aluminum v. Weber) were also decided together with United States v. Weber.

Vance v. Bradley (No. 77-1254)

No details yet.

Washington v. Fishing Vessel Assn. (No. 77-983)

No details yet.

Washington v. Yakima Indian Nation (No. 77-388)

No details yet.

Williams v. Brown (No. 78-357)

No details yet.

Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe (No. 78-160)

No details yet.

Wolston v. Reader's Digest Assn., Inc. (No. 78-5414)

No details yet.