The Oyez Project: 1979 Term

Aaron v. SEC (No. 79-66)

No details yet.

Adams v. Texas (No. 79-5175)

No details yet.

Agins v. Tiburon (No. 79-602)

No details yet.

American Export Lines, Inc. v. Alvez (No. 79-1)

No details yet.

Andrus v. Allard (No. 78-740)

No details yet.

Andrus v. Glover Construction Co. (No. 79-48)

No details yet.

Andrus v. Idaho (No. 79-260)

No details yet.

Andrus v. Shell Oil Co. (No. 78-1815)

No details yet.

Andrus v. Utah (No. 78-1522)

No details yet.

Baldasar v. Illinois (No. 77-6219)

No details yet.

Beck v. Alabama (No. 78-6621)

No details yet.

Bifulco v. United States (No. 79-5010)

No details yet.

Bloomer v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. (No. 78-1418)

No details yet.

Board Of Education, New York City v. Harris (No. 78-873)

No details yet.

Board Of Regents v. Tomanio (No. 79-424)

No details yet.

Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert (No. 78-1327)

No details yet.

Branti v. Finkel (No. 78-1654)

No details yet.

Brown v. Glines (No. 78-1006)

No details yet.

Brown v. Louisiana (No. 79-5364)

No details yet.

Bryant v. Yellen (No. 79-421)

No details yet.

Busic v. United States (No. 78-6020)

No details yet.

California Brewers Assn. v. Bryant (No. 78-1548)

No details yet.

California Liquor Dealers v. Midcal Aluminum (No. 79-97)

No details yet.

California v. Nevada (No. 73 ORIG)

No details yet.

Carbon Fuel Co. v. Mine Workers (No. 78-1183)

No details yet.

Carey v. Brown (No. 79-703)

No details yet.

Carlson, v. Green (No. 78-1261)

No details yet.

Central Hudson Gas & Elec. v. Public Ser v. Comm'n (No. 79-565)

No details yet.

Central Machinery Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm'n (No. 78-1604)

No details yet.

Chiarella v. United States (No. 78-1202)

Petitioner Vincent Chiarella worked in the composing room of Pandick Press (Pandick), a financial printer. An acquiring corporation hired Pandick to produce announcements of corporate takeover bids. Although the identities of the acquiring and target corporations were concealed, Chiarella was able to deduce the names of the target companies. Without disclosing his knowledge, Chiarella purchased stock in the target companies and sold the shares immediately after the takeover bids were made public. Chiarella realized slightly more than $30,000 in profits from his trading activities. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) then investigated Chiarella's trading activities. Chiarella entered into a consent decree with the SEC in which he agreed to return the profits he made to the sellers of the shares. A few months later, Chiarella was indicted on seventeen counts of violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act) and SEC Rule 10b-5. Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act prohibits the use "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security" of "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the [SEC] may prescribe." Rule 10b-5, promulgated under Section 10(b), makes it unlawful for any person to "employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud . . . in connection with the purchase or sale of any security." Chiarella was convicted at trial and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed his conviction.

City Of Rome v. United States (No. 78-1840)

No details yet.

Coffy v. Republic Steel Corp. (No. 79-81)

No details yet.

Committee For Public Education v. Regan (No. 78-1369)

No details yet.

Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Ser v. Comm'n (No. 79-134)

No details yet.

Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v. Gte Sylvania (No. 79-521)

No details yet.

Costle v. Pacific Legal Foundation (No. 78-1472)

No details yet.

Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle (No. 79-797)

No details yet.

Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co. (No. 79-105)

No details yet.

Cuyler v. Sullivan (No. 78-1832)

No details yet.

Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co. (No. 79-669)

No details yet.

Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank v. Roper (No. 78-904)

No details yet.

Diamond v. Chakrabarty (No. 79-136)

After genetically engineering a bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil, Ananda Chakrabarty sought to patent his creation under Title 35 U.S.C. Section 101, providing patents for people who invent or discover "any" new and useful "manufacture" or "composition of matter." On appeal from an application rejection by a patent examiner the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirmed, stating that living things are not patentable under Section 101. When this decision was reversed by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, Diamond appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Estes v. Metropolitan Branches, Dallas NAACP (No. 78-253)

No details yet.

Exxon Corp. v. Wisconsin Dept. Of Revenue (No. 79-509)

No details yet.

Ferri v. Ackerman (No. 78-5981)

No details yet.

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin (No. 78-1487)

No details yet.

Forsham v. Harris (No. 78-1118)

No details yet.

Fullilove v. Klutznick (No. 78-1007)

In 1977, Congress enacted legislation requiring that at least 10 percent of federal funds granted for local public works programs had to be used to obtain services or supplies from businesses owned by minority group members. H. Earl Fullilove and other contractors filed suit, claiming they had been economically harmed by the enforcement of the statute. The defendant was Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary of Commerce.

General Telephone Co. v. EEOC (No. 79-488)

No details yet.

Godfrey v. Georgia (No. 78-6899)

No details yet.

Goldwater v. Carter (No. 79-856)

President Jimmy Carter acted without congressional approval in ending a defense treaty with Taiwan.

Gomez v. Toledo (No. 79-5601)

No details yet.

Gte Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union (No. 78-1248)

No details yet.

Harris v. McRae (No. 79-1268)

In 1965, Congress established the Medicaid program, via Title XIX of the Social Security Act, to provide federal financial assistance to states that chose to reimburse certain costs of medical treatment for needy persons. Beginning in 1976, Congress passed a number of versions of the "Hyde Amendment" that severely limited the use of federal funds to reimburse the cost of abortions under the Medicaid program. Cora McRae, a pregnant Medicaid recipient, challenged the Amendment and took action against Patricia R. Harris, Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Harrison v. Ppg Industries, Inc. (No. 78-1918)

No details yet.

Hatzlachh Supply Co. v. United States (No. 78-1175)

No details yet.

Hicks v. Oklahoma (No. 78-6885)

No details yet.

Idaho Ex Rel. Evans v. Oregon (No. 67 ORIG)

No details yet.

Illinois v. Vitale (No. 78-1845)

No details yet.

Industrial Union Dept. v. Amer. Petroleum Inst. (No. 78-911)

Acting under authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Secretary of Labor, after having demonstrated a link between exposure to benzene and leukemia, set a standard reducing the airborne concentrations of benzene to which workers could be exposed. The standard reduced the allowable amount from 10 parts per million (ppm) to one ppm. This case was decided together with Marshall v. American Petroleum Institute.

Jenkins v. Anderson (No. 78-6809)

No details yet.

Kaiser Aetna v. United States (No. 78-738)

No details yet.

Kissinger v. Reporters Committee (No. 78-1088)

No details yet.

Lewis v. Bt Investment Managers, Inc. (No. 79-45)

No details yet.

Lewis v. United States (No. 78-1595)

No details yet.

Maher v. Gagne (No. 78-1888)

No details yet.

Maine v. Thiboutot (No. 79-838)

No details yet.

Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc. (No. 79-253)

No details yet.

Martinez v. California (No. 78-1268)

No details yet.

Massachusetts v. Meehan (No. 78-1874)

No details yet.

Mclain v. Real Estate Bd. Of New Orleans (No. 78-1501)

No details yet.

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner Of Taxes (No. 78-1201)

No details yet.

Mohasco Corp. v. Silver (No. 79-616)

No details yet.

Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. (No. 78-1557)

No details yet.

Navarro Savings Assn. v. Lee (No. 79-465)

No details yet.

New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey (No. 79-192)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Longshoremen (No. 79-1082)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Retail Store Employees (No. 79-672)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Yeshiva University (No. 78-857)

No details yet.

Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Liepelt (No. 78-1323)

No details yet.

O'bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center (No. 78-1318)

No details yet.

Ohio v. Kentucky (No. 27 ORIG)

No details yet.

Ohio v. Roberts (No. 78-756)

No details yet.

Owen v. City Of Independence (No. 78-1779)

No details yet.

Perrin v. United States (No. 78-959)

No details yet.

PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (No. 79-289)

High school students seeking support for their opposition to a United Nations resolution against Zionism set up a table in PruneYard to distribute literature and solicit signatures for a petition. A security guard told them to leave since their actions violated the shopping center's regulations against "publicly expressive" activities.

Rawlings v. Kentucky (No. 79-5146)

No details yet.

Reeves Inc. v. Stake (No. 79-677)

The state of South Dakota operated a cement plant. A substantial percentage of the plant's production was sold to buyers outside the state. One such customer was Reeves, Inc., a concrete distributor in Wyoming that obtained over 90 percent of its cement from the state-run plant. In 1978, for economic reasons, the South Dakota plant began supplying in-state customers before honoring other commitments. Reeves, Inc. challenged South Dakota's "hoarding" of resources.

Rhode Island v. Innis (No. 78-1076)

After a picture identification by the victim of a robbery, Thomas J. Innis was arrested by police in Providence, Rhode Island. Innis was unarmed when arrested. Innis was advised of his Miranda rights and subsequently requested to speak with a lawyer. While escorting Innis to the station in a police car, three officers began discussing the shotgun involved in the robbery. One of the officers commented that there was a school for handicapped children in the area and that if one of the students found the weapon he might injure himself. Innis then interrupted and told the officers to turn the car around so he could show them where the gun was located.

Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia (No. 79-243)

After a series of mistrials in a murder case in the state of Virginia, a trial judge closed the trial to the public and the media. Defense counsel brought the closure motion; the prosecution did not object. Two reporters of Richmond Newspapers, Inc. challenged the judge's action.

Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper (No. 79-701)

No details yet.

Robert Michael Fungaroli v. Judith Diane Fungaroli (No. 79-492)

No details yet.

Roberts v. United States (No. 78-1793)

No details yet.

Rummel v. Estelle (No. 78-6386)

After being convicted of three felonies over a period of fifteen years, William James Rummel was given a life prison sentence as mandated by a Texas recidivist statute. Rummel's offenses involved approximately $230, and all of the offenses were nonviolent. Lower courts rejected Rummel's challenge to the sentence.

Rush v. Savchuk (No. 78-952)

No details yet.

Schaumburg v. Citizens For Better Environ. (No. 78-1335)

No details yet.

Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. County of Los Angeles and City of Compton (No. 78-1577)

No details yet.

Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp. v. Shell Oil Co (No. 78-1651)

No details yet.

Secretary Of Navy v. Huff (No. 78-599)

No details yet.

Snepp v. United States (No. 78-1871)

Upon accepting employment in the CIA in 1968, Snepp signed an agreement with the Agency that he would not publish any information during or after his term of employment relating to the Agency's activities without first obtaining Agency approval. Snepp published a book about CIA activities in South Vietnam without first submitting his manuscript to the Agency for review. A lower court denied Snepp royalties from his book for his failure to secure approval.

Standefer v. United States (No. 79-383)

No details yet.

Sun Ship, Inc. v. Pennsylvania (No. 79-343)

No details yet.

Supreme Court Of Va. v. Consumers Union (No. 79-198)

No details yet.

Texas v. New Mexico (No. 65 ORIG)

No details yet.

Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co. (No. 79-116)

No details yet.

Trammel v. United States (No. 78-5705)

No details yet.

United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty (No. 78-572)

No details yet.

United States v. Apfelbaum (No. 78-972)

No details yet.

United States v. Bailey (No. 78-990)

No details yet.

United States v. California (No. 5 ORIG)

No details yet.

United States v. Clark (No. 78-1513)

No details yet.

United States v. Clarke (No. 78-1693)

No details yet.

United States v. Crews (No. 78-777)

No details yet.

United States v. Euge (No. 78-1453)

No details yet.

United States v. Gillock (No. 78-1455)

No details yet.

United States v. Havens (No. 79-305)

No details yet.

United States v. Henry (No. 79-121)

No details yet.

United States v. Kubrick (No. 78-1014)

No details yet.

United States v. Louisiana (No. 9 ORIG)

No details yet.

United States v. Mendenhall (No. 78-1821)

No details yet.

United States v. Mitchell (No. 78-1756)

No details yet.

United States v. Payner (No. 78-1729)

No details yet.

United States v. Raddatz (No. 79-8)

No details yet.

United States v. Salvucci (No. 79-244)

No details yet.

United States v. Sioux Nation Of Indians (No. 79-639)

No details yet.

United States v. Ward (No. 79-394)

No details yet.

Vance v. Terrazas (No. 78-1143)

No details yet.

Vance v. Universal Amusement Co. (No. 78-1588)

No details yet.

Vaughn v. Vermilion Corp. (No. 77-1819)

No details yet.

Vitek v. Jones (No. 78-1155)

No details yet.

Walker v. Armco Steel Corp. (No. 78-1862)

No details yet.

Walter v. United States (No. 79-67)

No details yet.

Washington v. Confederated Tribes (No. 78-630)

No details yet.

Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Ins. Co. (No. 79-381)

No details yet.

Whalen v. United States (No. 78-5471)

No details yet.

Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall (No. 78-1870)

No details yet.

White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker (No. 78-1177)

No details yet.

Williams v. Zbaraz (No. 79-4)

No details yet.

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (No. 78-1078)

No details yet.

Ybarra v. Illinois (No. 78-5937)

No details yet.