Cases - 1970 term

United States v. Randall

Mon, 22 Feb 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

125

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Randall

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 513 (1971)

Argued

Monday, February 22, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Randall, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Whiteley v. Warden

Wed, 13 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

136

Petitioner

Whiteley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Warden

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 560 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, January 13, 1971

Decided

Monday, March 29, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Whiteley, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Williams v. United States

Wed, 21 Oct 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Williams

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 82

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 646 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, October 21, 1970

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

United States v. International Min'ls Corp.

Mon, 26 Apr 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

557

Appellee

International Min'ls Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 558 (1971)

Argued

Monday, April 26, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 834

None

Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp.

Wed, 09 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Phillips

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Martin Marietta Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 542 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, December 9, 1970

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1971

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Phillips, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Palmer v. Thompson

Mon, 14 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

107

Petitioner

Palmer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thompson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 217 (1971)

Argued

Monday, December 14, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Thompson, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

United States v. Vuitch

Tue, 12 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Vuitch

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 62 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, January 12, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, April 21, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Hickel v. Oil Shale Corp.

Wed, 21 Jan 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Hickel

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oil Shale Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 48 (1970)

Argued

Wednesday, January 21, 1970, Thursday, October 22, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, December 8, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Hickel, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 30 U.S.C. 22

None

Grove Press, v. Maryland State Board Of Censors

Tue, 10 Nov 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Maryland State Board Of Censors

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Grove Press,

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 480 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1970

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Maryland State Board Of Censors, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Graham v. Richardson

Mon, 22 Mar 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Arizona Dept of Public Welfare

1717 W Jefferson St Phoenix AZ 85007

Phoenix, AZ 85007

United States

33° 26' 47.292" N, 112° 5' 47.418" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

609

Appellant

John O. Graham, Commissioner, Department of Public Welfare, State of Arizona

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Carmen Richardson et al.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Consolidation

No. 727, Sailer et al. v. Leer et al.

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 365 (1971)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1971

Advocates

Michael S. Flam (argued the cause for the appellant in No. 609)

Joseph P. Work (argued the cause for the appellants in No. 727)

Anthony P. Ching (argued the cause for the appellees in No. 609)

Jonathan M. Stein (argued the cause for the appellees in No. 727, pro hac vice)

Facts of the Case

The state of Arizona restricts the distribution of welfare benefits to individuals who are either United States citizens or aliens who have lived in the country for at least 15 years. In 1969, Carmen Richardson, a resident alien of Arizona who met all requirements for welfare eligibility except the residency requirement, filed a class action lawsuit against the Commissioner of the State's Department of Public Welfare questioning the constitutionality of that requirement. The three-judge court in the District of Arizona found in favor of Richardson, but the Commissioner appealed. In the same year, a similar class action suit was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In this case, resident aliens of Pennsylvania challenged state law which dictated that if a Pennsylvania resident did not qualify for federal aid then he or she could only receive welfare benefits from the state if he or she were a citizen or had applied for citizenship. This three-judge court also found in favor of the resident aliens. However, one judge disagreed, and the defendants, namely the Executive Director of the Philadelphia County Board of Assistance and the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Department of Public Welfare, appealed.

Question

Does a state, like Arizona or Pennsylvania, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it denies welfare benefits to those who are not United States citizens or to aliens who have not lived in this country for a certain number of years?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Richardson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court asserted that to classify state residents solely based on alienage was inherently questionable, because aliens constitute a minority, separate from the rest of the population. The Court conceded that there had been instances in which state laws could treat citizens and non-citizens differently. However, it maintained that a state’s aim to conserve welfare benefits for citizens would not legitimize the denial of welfare benefits to aliens. Their justification was that the aliens pay taxes and, consequently, contribute to the pool of money from which welfare benefits are drawn. As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that the welfare benefit restrictions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ely v. Klahr

Tue, 23 Mar 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

548

Appellee

Klahr

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Ely

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 108 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, March 23, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Klahr, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Procunier v. Atchley

Wed, 18 Nov 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Procunier

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Atchley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 446 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, November 18, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, January 19, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Procunier, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Ramsey v. Mine Workers

Mon, 07 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Ramsey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mine Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 302 (1971)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1970

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Ramsey, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Norris-LaGuardia

None

Organization For A Better Austin v. Keefe

Wed, 20 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

135

Petitioner

Organization For A Better Austin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Keefe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 415 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, January 20, 1971

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Organization For A Better Austin, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Piccirillo v. New York

Mon, 09 Nov 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Piccirillo

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 548 (1971)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1970

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for New York, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Gordon v. Lance

Mon, 18 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Gordon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lance

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 1 (1971)

Argued

Monday, January 18, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Gordon, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Johnson v. United States

Wed, 24 Mar 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

5247

Petitioner

Johnson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 846 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, March 24, 1971

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Abate v. Mundt

Thu, 19 Nov 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Abate

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mundt

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 182 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, November 19, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Mundt, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Mayberry v. Pennsylvania

Thu, 17 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

121

Petitioner

Mayberry

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pennsylvania

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 455 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, December 17, 1970

Decided

Wednesday, January 20, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mayberry, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Law Students Research Council v. Wadmond

Thu, 15 Oct 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Wadmond

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Law Students Research Council

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 154 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, October 15, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Wadmond, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Ehlert v. United States.

Wed, 13 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

120

Petitioner

Ehlert

Respondent

United States.

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 99 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, January 13, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, April 21, 1971

Advocates

Paul N. Halvonik (argued the cause for the petitioner)

William H. Rehnquist (Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

NLRB v. Natural Gas Utility District

Tue, 20 Apr 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

785

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Natural Gas Utility District

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 600 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, April 20, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Natural Gas Utility District, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Bruno v. Pennsylvania

Mon, 14 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

205

Petitioner

Bruno

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pennsylvania

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 350 (1971)

Argued

Monday, December 14, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, January 12, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Pennsylvania, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Connell v. Higginbotham

Thu, 19 Nov 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Higginbotham

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Connell

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 207 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, November 19, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Connell, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Ocala Star-Banner Co. v. Damron

Thu, 17 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

118

Petitioner

Ocala Star-Banner Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Damron

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 295 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, December 17, 1970

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Ocala Star-Banner Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Griggs v. Duke Power Company

Mon, 14 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Duke Power Company's Dan River Stream Station

900 South Edgewood Road Eden NC 27288

Eden, NC 27288

United States

36° 30' 45.6192" N, 79° 43' 15.9168" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

124

Petitioner

Griggs

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Duke Power Company

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 424 (1971)

Argued

Monday, December 14, 1970

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1971

Facts of the Case

Willie Griggs filed a class action, on behalf of several fellow African- American employees, against his employer Duke Power Company . Griggs challenged Duke's "inside" transfer policy, requiring employees who want to work in all but the company's lowest paying Labor Department to register a minimum score on two separate aptitude tests in addition to having a high school education. Griggs claimed that Duke's policy discriminated against African-American employees in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. On appeal from a district court's dismissal of the claim, the Court of Appeals found no discriminatory practices. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question

Did Duke Power Company's intradepartmental transfer policy, requiring a high school education and the achievement of minimum scores on two separate aptitude tests, violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Griggs, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

Yes. After noting that Title VII of the Act intended to achieve equality of employment opportunities, the Court held that Duke's standardized testing requirement prevented a disproportionate number of African-American employees from being hired by, and advancing to higher-paying departments within, the company. Neither the high school graduation requirement nor the two aptitude tests was directed or intended to measure an employee's ability to learn or perform a particular job or category of jobs within the company. The Court concluded that the subtle, illegal, purpose of these requirements was to safeguard Duke's long-standing policy of giving job preferences to its white employees.

Investment Co. Institute v. Camp

Mon, 14 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Investment Co. Institute

Respondent

Camp

Consolidation

National Association of Securities Dealers v. SEC, No. 59

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 617 (1971)

Argued

December 14-15, 1970

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Investment Co. Institute, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 48 Stat. 162

None

Bostic v. United States

Wed, 21 Apr 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

5250

Petitioner

Bostic

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 547 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, April 21, 1971

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

California Human Resources Dept. v. Java

Wed, 24 Feb 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

507

Appellee

Java

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

California Human Resources Dept.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 121 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, February 24, 1971

Decided

Monday, April 26, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Java, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

None

Labine v. Vincent

Tue, 19 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

5257

Appellee

Vincent

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Labine

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 532 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, January 19, 1971

Decided

Monday, March 29, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Vincent, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Marine Terminal v. Rederi. Transatlantic

Thu, 22 Oct 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Marine Terminal

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rederi. Transatlantic

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 62 (1970)

Argued

Thursday, October 22, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, December 8, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Marine Terminal, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2341

None

Rewis v. United States

Tue, 19 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

5342

Petitioner

Rewis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 808 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, January 19, 1971

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Rewis, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1952

None

Tate v. Short

Thu, 14 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

324

Petitioner

Tate

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Short

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 395 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, January 14, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, March 2, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Tate, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

United States v. Harris

Tue, 23 Mar 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Harris

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 573 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, March 23, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

United States v. Reidel

Wed, 20 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

534

Appellee

Reidel

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 351 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, January 20, 1971

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Gainesville Utilities v. Florida Power Corp.

Wed, 24 Feb 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

464

Petitioner

Gainesville Utilities

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida Power Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 469

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 515 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, February 24, 1971

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Gainesville Utilities, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Power

None

United States v. Southern Ute Indians

Mon, 01 Mar 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

515

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Southern Ute Indians

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 159 (1971)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1971

Decided

Monday, April 26, 1971

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: res judicata

None

Astrup v. Immigration Service

Tue, 20 Apr 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

840

Petitioner

Astrup

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Immigration Service

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 509 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, April 20, 1971

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Astrup, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Moore v. Board Of Education

Tue, 13 Oct 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

444

Appellee

Board Of Education

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Moore

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 47 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, April 20, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Board Of Education, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

U.S. v. District Court For Water Di v. No. 5

Tue, 02 Mar 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

812

Petitioner

U.S. v. District Court For Water Di

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

No. 5

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 527 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, March 2, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for No. 5, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 43 U.S.C. 666

None

Nelson v. O'neil

Wed, 24 Mar 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

336

Petitioner

Nelson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

O'neil

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 622 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, March 24, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Nelson, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

None

Palmer v. City Of Euclid

Mon, 11 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

143

Appellee

City Of Euclid

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Palmer

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 544 (1971)

Argued

Monday, January 11, 1971

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Palmer, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Johnson v. Louisiana

Mon, 01 Mar 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

69-5035

Appellee

Louisiana

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Johnson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 356 (1972)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1971

Reargued:

Monday, January 10, 1972

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1972

Advocates

Richard A. Buckley (Reargued the cause for the appellant)

Louise Korns (Reargued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

The Louisiana State Constitution and Code of Criminal Procedure allowed less- than-unanimous juries to convict defendants in criminal cases in which hard labor is considered as punishment. Nine of twelve jury members were needed to return a guilty verdict. Johnson was convicted of armed robbery by a jury split nine to three.

Question

Do less-than-unanimous jury verdicts in certain cases violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Louisiana, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Trial By Jury

The Court held that less-than-unanimous convictions did not violate the reasonable doubt standard embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Justice White argued that a minority opposing conviction does not prevent the other jurors from reaching their decisions beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the presence of dissenting jurors does not indicate that the state failed to uphold this standard. Finally, allowing less-than- unanimous decisions in certain cases serves a rational state purpose, not offensive to the Constitution.

Mcgee v. United States

Tue, 23 Feb 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

362

Petitioner

Mcgee

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 479 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, February 23, 1971

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Commissioner v. Lincoln Savings & Loan Assn.

Tue, 23 Feb 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

544

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lincoln Savings & Loan Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 345 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, February 23, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Commissioner, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research

Tue, 10 Nov 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Zenith Radio Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hazeltine Research

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 321 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1970

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Zenith Radio Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Perez v. Campbell

Tue, 19 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

5175

Petitioner

Perez

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Campbell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 637 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, January 19, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Perez, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

United States v. Freed

Mon, 11 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

345

Appellee

Freed

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 601 (1971)

Argued

Monday, January 11, 1971

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Schlanger v. Seamans

Mon, 22 Feb 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

5481

Petitioner

Schlanger

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Seamans

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 487 (1971)

Argued

Monday, February 22, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, March 23, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Seamans, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Bell v. Burson

Tue, 23 Mar 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

5586

Petitioner

Bell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Burson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 535 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, March 23, 1971

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bell, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Utah v. United States

Mon, 26 Apr 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

31 ORIG

Plaintiff

Utah

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

United States

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 9 (1971)

Argued

Monday, April 26, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Utah, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United Transportation Union v. Michigan Bar

Wed, 20 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

434

Petitioner

United Transportation Union

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Michigan Bar

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 576 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, January 20, 1971

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United Transportation Union, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

None

Perez v. United States

Mon, 22 Mar 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

600

Petitioner

Perez

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 146 (1971)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1971

Decided

Monday, April 26, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Magnesium Casting Co. v. NLRB

Mon, 18 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

370

Petitioner

Magnesium Casting Co.

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 137 (1971)

Argued

January 18-19, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for NLRB, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Lemon v. Kurtzman

Wed, 03 Mar 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania

601 Market Street Philadelphia PA 19106

Philadelphia, PA 19106

United States

39° 57' 2.3436" N, 75° 9' 2.1636" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Kurtzman

Respondent

Lemon

Consolidation

Earley v. DiCenso, No. 569

Robinson v. DiCenso, No. 570

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 602 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, March 3, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1971

Advocates

J. Shane Creamer (Argued the cause for the appellees)

William B. Ball (Argued the cause for the appellee schools)

Henry W. Sawyer, III (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

This case was heard concurrently with two others, Earley v. DiCenso (1971) and Robinson v. DiCenso (1971). The cases involved controversies over laws in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. In Pennsylvania, a statute provided financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to non-public schools. The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools. Each statute made aid available to "church-related educational institutions."

Question

Did the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by making state financial aid available to "church- related educational institutions"?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Lemon, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

Yes. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Burger articulated a three-part test for laws dealing with religious establishment. To be constitutional, a statute must have "a secular legislative purpose," it must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." The Court found that the subsidization of parochial schools furthered a process of religious inculcation, and that the "continuing state surveillance" necessary to enforce the specific provisions of the laws would inevitably entangle the state in religious affairs. The Court also noted the presence of an unhealthy "divisive political potential" concerning legislation which appropriates support to religious schools.

Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Transportation Union

Mon, 18 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

189

Petitioner

Chicago & N. W. R. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Transportation Union

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 570 (1971)

Argued

Monday, January 18, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Railway Labor

None

Mcgautha v. California

Mon, 09 Nov 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

203

Petitioner

Mcgautha

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 204

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 183 (1971)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1970

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for California, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs

Wed, 20 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

133

Appellee

Thirty-Seven Photographs

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 363 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, January 20, 1971

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Harris v. New York

Thu, 17 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

206

Petitioner

Harris

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 222 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, December 17, 1970

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1971

Advocates

James J. Duggan (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Sybil H. Landau (Argued the cause for the District Attorney of New York County as amicus curiae urging affirmance)

Joel Martin Aurnou (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Harris was arrested for making two sales of heroin to an undercover police officer. Before receiving the Miranda warnings, Harris said that he had made both sales at the request of the officer. This statement was not admitted into evidence at the trial. However, Harris later testified in Court that he did not make the first sale and in the second sale he merely sold the officer baking powder. Harris' initial statement was then used by the prosecution in an attempt to impeach his credibility.

Question

Did the use of Harris' post-arrest statement violate his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights guaranteed by the Miranda decision?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for New York, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

No. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the Miranda decision did not mandate that evidence inadmissible against an accused in the prosecution's case must be barred for all purposes from the trial. The Court reasoned that the shield provided by Miranda could not be "perverted into a license to use perjury by way of a defense, free from the risk of confrontation with prior inconsistent utterances." The Court found that the speculative possibility that police misconduct could be encouraged was outweighed by the value of admitting the statement into the impeachment process.

Cohen v. California

Mon, 22 Feb 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Corridors of Los Angeles Superior Court

110 N Grand Ave Los Angeles CA 90012

Los Angeles, CA 90012

United States

34° 3' 21.9528" N, 118° 14' 53.376" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

299

Appellee

California

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Cohen

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 15 (1971)

Argued

Monday, February 22, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1971

Advocates

Melville B. Nimmer (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Michael T. Sauer (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

A 19-year-old department store worker expressed his opposition to the Vietnam War by wearing a jacket emblazoned with "FUCK THE DRAFT. STOP THE WAR" The young man, Paul Cohen, was charged under a California statute that prohibits "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or person [by] offensive conduct." Cohen was found guilty and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Question

Did California's statute, prohibiting the display of offensive messages such as "Fuck the Draft," violate freedom of expression as protected by the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Cohen, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. In an opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the Court reasoned that the expletive, while provocative, was not directed toward anyone; besides, there was no evidence that people in substantial numbers would be provoked into some kind of physical action by the words on his jacket. Harlan recognized that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric." In doing so, the Court protected two elements of speech: the emotive (the expression of emotion) and the cognitive (the expression of ideas).

United States v. Greater Buffalo Press

Mon, 19 Apr 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

821

Appellee

Greater Buffalo Press

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 549 (1971)

Argued

Monday, April 19, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Davis v. School Comm'rs Of Mobile County

Tue, 13 Oct 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

436

Petitioner

Birdie Mae Davis et al.

Respondent

Board of School Commissioners Of Mobile County et al.

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 33 (1971)

Argued

October 13-14, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, April 20, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Davis, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Griffin v. Breckenridge

Wed, 13 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Kemper County MS

United States

32° 48' 6.642" N, 88° 42' 39.2256" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

144

Appellant

Eugene Griffin et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Lavon Breckenridge et al.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 88 (1971)

Argued

January 13-14, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1971

Advocates

Stephen J. Pollak (argued the cause for the petitioners)

W. D. Moore (by appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the respondents)

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

A group of black Mississippi citizens filed for damages against two white Mississippi citizens pursuant to 42 U.S.C Section 1985 subsection 3 which protects against conspirators interfering with the civil rights of others. R.G. Grady, a citizen of Tennessee, was driving the plaintiffs in the suit along a public highway, when the defendants, acting under the misconception that Grady worked for the organization Civil Rights for Negroes, allegedly pulled their truck into the path of Grady’s car, causing him to stop. The defendants were accused of forcing Grady and his passengers to step out of the car and preventing their escape. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant James Calvin Breckenridge proceeded to beat Grady and the plaintiffs in the head with a club, injuring them. The defendants also threatened the plaintiffs verbally and pointed firearms at them. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, basing their decision on a previous case, Collins v. Hardyman. This case limited section 1985 subsection 3 to apply only to conspiracies somehow related to state laws or state officials, to avoid possible conflict with the U.S. Constitution. The Court of Appeals agreed.

Question

1) What is the scope and constitutionality, primarily with respect to section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment in relation to section 1985 subsection 3? 2) Did the defendants of the civil suit disobey the statute?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Griffin, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1985)

In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Potter Stewart, the Court concluded that section 1985 subsection 3 covers conspiracy among private parties, uninvolved in official government business because three indicators pointed to that conclusion: the actual text of the law, the law in relation to the parent law upon which it was based, and the way in which the law had been interpreted in the past. The Court found that the conspirators must intend to deprive someone from a particular demographic group of equal rights to be in violation of section 1985 subsection 3. When these requirements are met, Congress can punish conspirators while acting in compliance with section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment without the limitations of Collins v. Hardyman. Finally, the Court ruled that, in the civil suit, the defendants did conspire to commit the assault with the purpose of infringing on the plaintiffs’ legal rights because of their race. And, the plaintiffs suffered personal injuries as a result. Thus, the previous judgment is reversed.

United States v. Weller

Thu, 10 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Weller

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 254 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, December 10, 1970

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Radich v. New York

Mon, 22 Feb 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

169

Appellee

New York

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Radich

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 531 (1971)

Argued

Monday, February 22, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for New York, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Donaldson v. United States

Thu, 19 Nov 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Donaldson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 517 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, November 19, 1970

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1971

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States et al)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Triangle Improvement Council v. Ritchie

Mon, 22 Mar 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

712

Petitioner

Triangle Improvement Council

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ritchie

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 497 (1971)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1971

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Ritchie, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Time, Inc. v. Pape

Wed, 16 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

109

Petitioner

Time, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pape

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 279 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, December 16, 1970

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Time, Inc., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Groppi v. Wisconsin

Mon, 07 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Wisconsin

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Groppi

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 505 (1971)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1970

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Groppi, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 6: Other Sixth Amendment Provisions

None

Gillette v. United States

Wed, 09 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Gillette

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 325

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 437 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, December 9, 1970

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Wyman v. James

Tue, 20 Oct 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Barbara James' apartment

"90 West 164th Street**** Apt. 2B" Bronx NY 10452

Bronx, NY 10452

United States

40° 49' 57.0504" N, 73° 55' 43.9104" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

George K. Wyman, Commissioner of the State of New York Department of Social Services

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Barbara James et al.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 309 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, October 20, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, January 12, 1971

Advocates

Brenda Soloff (Assistant Attorney General of New York, argued the cause for appellant Wyman)

Jonathan Weiss (argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Barbara James and her son Maurice lived in the Bronx, New York City. Shortly after Maurice's birth, Barbara James applied for assistance under New York State's Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC). James began receiving assistance after a caseworker visited her apartment. Two years later, James was scheduled to be visited again by a caseworker. This visit was required under New York State law and would affect her benefits under AFDC. She refused to allow this visit. In a procedural hearing, she continued her refusal, and her AFDC assistance was terminated by New York State as a result. James then filed suit under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the caseworker visit was a search and would violate her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The District Court ruled in her favor. New York appealed.

Question

Did New York violate James' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights in terminating her AFDC benefits when she refused the caseworker visit?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Wyman, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

No. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court held that a caseworker visit was not a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Harry A. Blackmun reasoned that "the visitation in itself is not forced or compelled," and as a result, "there is no entry of the home and there is no search." Even if the caseworker visit "does possess some of the characteristics of a search in the traditional sense," the visit still would not violate the Fourth Amendment, under the unreasonableness standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio. The Court concluded that the caseworker visit was not unreasonable, as the visit allowed the state to focus on the child and to ensure that its welfare funds were being used properly. Moreover, the visit was not confrontational and James' refusal did not lead to criminal prosecution. Justice Byron R. White concurred in the judgment.

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania

Wed, 09 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Juvenile Court of Philadelphia

1801 Vine St Philadelphia PA 19103

Philadelphia, PA 19103

United States

39° 57' 32.0652" N, 75° 10' 7.5756" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

322

Appellant

Joseph McKeiver et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Pennsylvania

Respondent Type

Appellee

Consolidation

No. 128, In re Burrus et al.

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 528 (1971)

Argued

December 9-10, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1971

Advocates

Michael Meltsner (argued the cause for the petitioners in No. 128)

Robert Morgan (Attorney General of North Carolina, argued the cause for the respondent in No. 128)

Alfred L. Scanlan (argued the cause for the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges as amicus curiae urging affirmance in No. 128)

Daniel E. Farmer (argued the cause for the appellants in No. 322)

Arlen Specter (argued the cause for the appellee in No. 322)

Facts of the Case

These cases involve juveniles brought to trial without a jury. The first involves Joseph McKeiver and Edward Terry, fifteen and sixteen year old boys charged with acts of robbery, theft, assault, and escape. At trial before the Juvenile Court of Philadelphia, each was denied a request for a jury trial. A Superior Court affirmed the order, and, after consolidation of their cases, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania did likewise, saying there was no constitutional right to a jury trial for juveniles. In re Burrus concerns the consolidated cases of more than forty juveniles ranging in age from eleven to fifteen. Most of the juveniles faced misdemeanor charges stemming from protests of school consolidations that took place in November and December, 1968 during which, on six different occasions, they blocked traffic and refused to clear the roadway. Additionally, one sixteen-year-old juvenile faced charges of disorderly conduct for an incident that occurred at the local school. In each case, the judge denied a request for a jury trial. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court of North Carolina both affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no constitutional requirement for a jury trial for juvenile defendants.

Question

Does the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as applied to the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, apply to juveniles?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Pennsylvania, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Trial By Jury

No. In a 6-3 plurality opinion authored by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court concluded that the previous application of other criminal rights to juveniles, like rights to counsel and cross-examination, was done out of an emphasis on factfinding. "But one cannot say that in our legal system the jury is a necessary component of accurate factfinding." Additionally, the Court noted that, because juvenile prosecution is not considered either civil or criminal, the whole of the Sixth Amendment does not necessarily apply. As such, there is no requirement for a jury trial in juvenile cases.

Decker v. Harper & Row Publishers

Wed, 16 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

113

Petitioner

Decker

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Harper & Row Publishers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 348 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, December 16, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, January 12, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Harper & Row Publishers, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Perkins v. Matthews

Tue, 20 Oct 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Matthews

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Perkins

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 379 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, October 20, 1970

Decided

Thursday, January 14, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Perkins, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

None

Relford v. U.S. Disciplinary Commandant

Tue, 15 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Isiah Relford

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S. Disciplinary Commandant

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 355 (1971)

Argued

December 15-16, 1970

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1971

Advocates

Judson W. Detrick (by appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Erwin N. Griswold (Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for U.S. Disciplinary Commandant, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Uniform Code of Military Justice

None

Perez v. Ledesma

Tue, 17 Nov 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Ledesma

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Perez

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 82 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, November 17, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Perez, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

United States v. Ryan

Mon, 26 Apr 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

758

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ryan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 530 (1971)

Argued

Monday, April 26, 1971

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Johnson v. Mississippi

Wed, 21 Apr 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

5485

Petitioner

Johnson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mississippi

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 212 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, April 21, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Johnson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge

Tue, 15 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Motor Coach Employees

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lockridge

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 274 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, December 15, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Motor Coach Employees, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Jenness v. Fortson

Mon, 01 Mar 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

5714

Appellee

Fortson

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Jenness

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 431 (1971)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Fortson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Whitcomb v. Chavis

Tue, 08 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Chavis

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Whitcomb

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 124 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, December 8, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Whitcomb, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Blonder-Tongue v. University Foundation

Thu, 14 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

338

Petitioner

Blonder-Tongue

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

University Foundation

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 313 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, January 14, 1971

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Blonder-Tongue, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Estoppel

None

Richardson v. Perales

Wed, 13 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

108

Petitioner

Richardson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Perales

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 389 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, January 13, 1971

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Richardson, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

None

Mackey v. United States

Wed, 21 Oct 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Mackey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 667 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, October 21, 1970

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Askew v. Hargrave

Tue, 23 Feb 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

573

Petitioner

Hargrave

Respondent

Askew

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 476 (1971)

Argued

February 23-24, 1971

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Askew, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Hunter v. Tennessee

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:28:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

5085

Petitioner

Hunter

Respondent

Tennessee

Consolidation

No. 5098

No. 5101

No. 5103

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 711 (1971)

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Hunter, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Wisconsin v. Constantineau

Thu, 10 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Constantineau

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Wisconsin

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 433 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, December 10, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, January 19, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Constantineau, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

U.S. Bulk Carriers v. Arguelles

Thu, 12 Nov 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

U.S. Bulk Carriers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arguelles

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 351 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, November 12, 1970

Decided

Wednesday, January 13, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Arguelles, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 46 U.S.C. 596

None

Mcdaniel v. Barresi

Tue, 13 Oct 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

420

Appellee

Barresi

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mcdaniel

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 39 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, April 20, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mcdaniel, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IV

None

Clay v. United States

Mon, 19 Apr 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

783

Petitioner

Clay

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 698 (1971)

Argued

Monday, April 19, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1971

Advocates

Chauncey Eskridge (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Erwin N. Griswold (Argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

Board No. 47, Louisville, Kentucky, denied the application of Cassius Clay, also known as Muhammad Ali, for classification as a conscientious objector. Clay then took an administrative appeal to the Kentucky Appeal Board, which tentatively classified him I-A, or eligible for unrestricted military service, and referred his file to the Justice Department for an advisory recommendation. The Justice Department concluded, contrary to a hearing officer's recommendation, that Clay's claim should be denied. The Department wrote that Clay did not meet any of the three basic tests for conscientious objector status; that he is conscientiously opposed to war in any form, that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief, and that this objection is sincere. Subsequently, the Appeal Board denied Clay's claim, but without stating its reasons. When Clay refused to report for induction, he was tried and convicted of willful refusal to submit to induction. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question

Was Cassius Clay's induction notice invalid because it was grounded upon an erroneous denial of his claim to be classified as a conscientious objector?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Clay, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

Yes. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that since the Appeal Board gave no reason for the denial of a conscientious objector exemption to Clay, and that it was impossible to determine on which of the three grounds offered in the Justice Department's letter that board relied, Clay's conviction must be reversed. The Court reasoned that Clay satisfied the first two tests of conscientious objection. Regarding the third test, the Court concluded that whether or not Clay met the test of conscientious objection to war in any form, it was not clear that the Appeal Board relied on some legitimate ground in denying the claim, and therefore the conviction could not stand. In separate opinions, Justices William O. Douglas and John M. Harlan concurred. Justice Thurgood Marshall did not participate.

Board Of Education v. Swann

Tue, 13 Oct 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

498

Appellee

Swann

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Board Of Education

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 43 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, April 20, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Swann, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Oregon v. Mitchell

Mon, 19 Oct 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

43 ORIG

Petitioner

Oregon

Respondent

Mitchell

Consolidation

No. 44 ORIG

No. 46 ORIG

No. 47 ORIG

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 112 (1970)

Argued

Monday, October 19, 1970

Decided

Monday, December 21, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Oregon, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

Tue, 12 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Edward Coolidge's Home

312 Seames Drive Manchester NH 03103

Manchester, NH 03103

United States

42° 58' 0.876" N, 71° 26' 29.2344" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

323

Petitioner

Coolidge

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New Hampshire

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 443 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, January 12, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1971

Advocates

Archibald Cox (By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Alexander J. Kalinski (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

In the wake of a "particularly brutal" murder of a fourteen-year-old girl, the New Hampshire Attorney General took charge of police activities relating to the murder. When the police applied for a warrant to search suspect Edward Coolidge's automobile, the Attorney General, acting as a justice of the peace, authorized it. Additionally, local police had taken items from Coolidge's home during the course of an interview with the suspect's wife. Coolidge was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Question

Did the searches of Coolidge's home and automobile violate the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Coolidge, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

In a decision in which a number of justices chose to concur in part and dissent in part, the Court held that the searches and seizures of Coolidge's property were unconstitutional. Justice Stewart's opinion held that the warrant authorizing the seizure of Coolidge's automobile was invalid because it was not issued by a "neutral and detatched magistrate." Stewart also rejected New Hampshire's arguments in favor of making an exception to the warrant requirement. Stewart held that neither the "incident to arrest" doctrine nor the "plain view" doctrine justified the search, and that an "automobile exception" was inapplicable.

Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp.

Wed, 18 Nov 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Usner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Luckenbach Overseas Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 494 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, November 18, 1970

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Blount v. Rizzi

Tue, 10 Nov 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Rizzi

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Blount

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 58

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 410 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1970

Decided

Thursday, January 14, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Rizzi, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 39 U.S.C. 4006

None

James v. Valtierra

Wed, 03 Mar 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

154

Appellant

James et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Anita Valtierra et al.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Consolidation

No. 226, Shaffer v. Valtierra et al.

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 137 (1971)

Argued

March 3-4, 1971

Decided

Monday, April 26, 1971

Advocates

Donald C. Atkinson (argued the cause for the appellants in No. 154)

Moses Lasky (argued the cause for the appellant in No. 226)

Archibald Cox (argued the cause for the appellees in both cases)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for James, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Hodgson v. Steelworkers

Tue, 23 Mar 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

655

Petitioner

Hodgson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Steelworkers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 333 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, March 23, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1971

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Steelworkers, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure

None

Atlantic City Electric Co. v. United States

Thu, 12 Nov 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Atlantic City Electric Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 106

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 73 (1970)

Argued

Thursday, November 12, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, December 8, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Tilton v. Richardson

Tue, 02 Mar 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Congress

Constitution and Delaware Street Washington D.C. 20002

Washington 20002

United States

38° 53' 31.1496" N, 77° 0' 29.1744" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

153

Appellee

Richardson

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Tilton

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 672 (1971)

Argued

March 2-3, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1971

Facts of the Case

The federal Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 provided construction grants to church-sponsored higher educational institutions. The grants were to be used for the construction of non-religious school facilities. The Act also stipulated that twenty years after the grant had been given, schools were free to use the buildings for any purpose.

Question

Did the Act violate the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Tilton, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 20 U.S.C. 754

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that only the 20-year limitation portion of the Act violated the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. The Court invalidated the 20-year clause, arguing that subsidizing the construction of facilities used for non-secular purposes would have the effect of advancing religion. The Court held that the church-related institutions in question had not used their federally-funded facilities for religious activities, and that the facilities were "indistinguishable from a typical state university facility." The Court also held that the Act did not excessively entangle the government with religion, noting that college students were less susceptible to religious indoctrination, that the aid was of "nonideological character," and that one-time grants did not require constant state surveillance.

United States v. Mitchell

Tue, 20 Apr 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

798

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mitchell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 190 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, April 20, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents

Tue, 12 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

301

Petitioner

Bivens

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 388 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, January 12, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Bivens, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

California v. Byers

Tue, 08 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Byers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 424 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, December 8, 1970

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for California, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Citizens To Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe

Mon, 07 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

1066

Petitioner

Citizens To Preserve Overton Park

Respondent

Volpe

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 402 (1971)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1970, Monday, January 11, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, March 2, 1971

Advocates

John W. Vardaman, Jr. (argued the cause for the petitioner)

Erwin N. Griswold (argued the cause for respondent Volpe)

J. Alan Hanover (argued the cause for respondent Speight)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Citizens To Preserve Overton Park, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Administrative Procedure, or Administrative Orders Review

None

Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp.

Mon, 18 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

41 ORIG

Plaintiff

Ohio

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Wyandotte Chemicals Corp.

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 493 (1971)

Argued

Monday, January 18, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, March 23, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

NLRB v. Operating Engineers

Wed, 18 Nov 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Operating Engineers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 42

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 297 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, November 18, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, January 12, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for NLRB, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed.

Mon, 12 Oct 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Mecklenburg County Superior Court

832 East Fourth Street Charlotte NC 28202

Charlotte, NC 28202

United States

35° 13' 13.1808" N, 80° 50' 14.802" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

281

Petitioner

Swann

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 349

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 1 (1971)

Argued

Monday, October 12, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, April 20, 1971

Advocates

Julius LeVonne Chambers (Argued the cause for petitioners in No. 281 and respondents in No. 349)

James M. Nabrit, III (Argued the cause for petitioners in No. 281 and respondents in No. 349)

Benjamin S. Horack (Argued the cause for respondents in No. 281 and petitioners in No. 349)

Erwin N. Griswold (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae in both cases)

William J. Wagonner (Argued the cause for respondents in No. 281 and petitioners in No. 349)

Facts of the Case

After the Supreme Court's decision in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education, little progress had been made in desegregating public schools. One example was the Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, system in which approximately 14,000 black students attended schools that were either totally black or more than 99 percent black. Lower courts had experimented with a number of possible solutions when the case reached the Supreme Court.

Question

Were federal courts constitutionally authorized to oversee and produce remedies for state-imposed segregation?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that once violations of previous mandates directed at desegregating schools had occurred, the scope of district courts' equitable powers to remedy past wrongs were broad and flexible. The Court ruled that 1) remedial plans were to be judged by their effectiveness, and the use of mathematical ratios or quotas were legitimate "starting points" for solutions; 2) predominantly or exclusively black schools required close scrutiny by courts; 3) non-contiguous attendance zones, as interim corrective measures, were within the courts' remedial powers; and 4) no rigid guidelines could be established concerning busing of students to particular schools.

Boilermakers v. Hardeman

Wed, 16 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

123

Petitioner

Boilermakers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hardeman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 233 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, December 16, 1970

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Boilermakers, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure

None

Rosenberg v. Yee Chien Woo

Tue, 23 Feb 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

156

Petitioner

Rosenberg

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yee Chien Woo

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 49 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, February 23, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, April 21, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rosenberg, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Rosenbloom v. Metromedia

Mon, 07 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Rosenbloom

Respondent

Metromedia

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 29 (1971)

Argued

December 7-8, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Metromedia, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

New York Times v. United States

Sat, 26 Jun 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Former New York Times Headquarters

229 West 43rd Street New York NY 10036

New York, NY 10036

United States

40° 45' 26.8812" N, 73° 59' 17.448" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

1873

Petitioner

New York Times

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

United States v. Washington Post, No. 1885

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 713 (1971)

Argued

Saturday, June 26, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, June 30, 1971

Advocates

Alexander M. Bickel (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Erwin N. Griswold (Argued the cause for the United States)

William R. Glendon (Argued the case for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

In what became known as the "Pentagon Papers Case," the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. The President argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security. This case was decided together with United States v. Washington Post Co.

Question

Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for New York Times, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. In its per curiam opinion the Court held that the government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case. Justices Black and Douglas argued that the vague word "security" should not be used "to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment." Justice Brennan reasoned that since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified.

Coates v. City Of Cincinnati

Mon, 11 Jan 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

117

Appellee

City Of Cincinnati

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Coates

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 611 (1971)

Argued

Monday, January 11, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Coates, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Apodaca v. Oregon

Mon, 01 Mar 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Oregon State Capitol

900 Court Street NE Salem OR 97301

Salem, OR 97301

United States

44° 56' 20.4432" N, 123° 1' 48.2088" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

69-5046

Petitioner

Apodaca

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oregon

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 404 (1972)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1971

Reargued:

Monday, January 10, 1972

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1972

Advocates

Jacob B. Tanzer (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Richard B. Sobel (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Richard B. Sobol (Reargued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Apodaca and two other defendants were convicted of assault, burglary, and grand larceny before three separate juries, all of which returned verdicts which were less than unanimous. Two of the cases were 11-1 and the other was 10-2 in favor of conviction.

Question

Is a defendant's right to a trial by jury in a criminal case in a state court (as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments) violated if the accused is convicted by a less-than-unanimous jury?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Oregon, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Trial By Jury

No. In a close decision the Court found that the accused's right to a jury trial does not require that juries return unanimous decisions in order to convict. After reviewing the history and function of juries in American society, the Court held that the most important function of the jury is to provide "commonsense judgment" in evaluating the respective arguments of accused and accuser. Requiring unanimity would not necessarily contribute to this function. A distinction was drawn, however, between capital and non- capital crimes.

Dewey v. Reynolds Metals Co.

Tue, 20 Apr 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

835

Petitioner

Dewey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reynolds Metals Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 689 (1971)

Argued

April 20-21, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1971

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Reynolds Metals Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy

Thu, 17 Dec 1970 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Monitor Patriot Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Roy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 265 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, December 17, 1970

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Monitor Patriot Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

U.S. v. District Court For Eagle County

Tue, 02 Mar 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

U.S.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

District Court For Eagle County

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 520 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, March 2, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for District Court For Eagle County, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 43 U.S.C. 666

None

United States v. Armour & Co.

Mon, 19 Apr 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

759

Appellee

Armour & Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 673 (1971)

Argued

Monday, April 19, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Armour & Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Samuels v. Mackell

Tue, 01 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Mackell

Respondent

Samuels

Consolidation

No. 9

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 66 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, April 1, 1969

Reargued:

Wednesday, April 29, 1970, Monday, November 16, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mackell, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

United States v. Johnson

jparsons — Mon, 19 Apr 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

577

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Sandra Denise Johnson

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 956 (1971)

Argued

Monday, April 19, 1971