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