Cases - 1971 term

Fein v. Selective Service System

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-58

Petitioner

Fein

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Selective Service System

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 365 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, October 12, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, March 21, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Selective Service System, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Picard v. Connor

Wed, 17 Nov 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-96

Petitioner

Picard

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Connor

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 270 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, November 17, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 20, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Picard, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Dunn v. Blumstein

Tue, 16 Nov 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Tennessee Governor's Office

600 Charlotte Avenue Nashville TN 37219

Nashville, TN 37219

United States

36° 9' 55.1592" N, 86° 46' 59.5056" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-13

Appellee

Blumstein

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Dunn

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 330 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, November 16, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, March 21, 1972

Facts of the Case

A Tennessee law required a one-year residence in the state and a three-month residence in the county as a precondition for voting. James Blumstein, a university professor who had recently moved to Tennessee, challenged the law by filing suit against Governor Winfield Dunn and other local officials in federal district court.

Question

Did Tennessee's durational residency requirements violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Dunn, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

In a 6-to-1 decision, the Court held that the law was an unconstitutional infringement upon the right to vote and the right to travel. Applying a strict equal protection test, the Court found that the law did not necessarily promote a compelling state interest. Justice Marshall argued in the majority opinion that the durational residency requirements were neither the least restrictive means available to prevent electoral fraud nor an appropriate method of guaranteeing the existence of "knowledgeable voters" within the state.

Flood v. Kuhn

Mon, 20 Mar 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-32

Petitioner

Flood

Respondent

Kuhn

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 258 (1972)

Argued

Monday, March 20, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1972

Advocates

Arthur J. Goldberg (argued the cause for the petitioner)

Paul A. Porter (argued the cause for the respondent Kuhn)

Louis F. Hoynes Jr. (argued the cause for respondents Feeney et al.)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Kuhn, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Schilb v. Kuebel

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-90

Appellee

Kuebel

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Schilb

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 357 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, October 12, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 20, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Kuebel, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

United States v. Marion

Mon, 08 Nov 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-19

Appellee

Marion

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 307 (1971)

Argued

Monday, November 8, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 20, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Speedy Trial

None

Perry v. Sindermann

Tue, 18 Jan 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Odessa Junior College

201 W University Blvd Odessa TX 79764

Odessa, TX 79764

United States

31° 52' 5.3112" N, 102° 22' 52.7592" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-36

Petitioner

Charles R. Perry et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Robert P. Sindermann

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

408 U.S. 593 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, January 18, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 29, 1972

Advocates

W. O. Shafer (argued the cause for the petitioners)

Michael H. Gottesman (argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Robert Sindermann had been a professor at Odessa Junior College for four years, working under one-year contracts. After his election as president of the Texas Junior College Teachers Association, he had several public disagreements with the Odessa Junior College Board of Regents. In May 1969, after the expiration of his teaching contract, Sindermann was not offered a new contract and terminated by the college's Board of Regents. While the Board of Regents did issue a press release accusing him of insubordination, they did not provide official reasons for his termination or the option of a hearing for him to challenge his termination. Sindermann filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. He alleged that his termination was due to his disagreements with the Board of Regents, a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech, and that the lack of a hearing violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. The District Court ruled for the Board of Regents without a full trial. He appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held that his termination would have been unconstitutional if it was based on his exercise of free speech or if he had a reasonable expectation of continued employment. The Fifth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court.

Question

(1) Was Sindermann entitled to a full trial in District Court?

(2) Was Sindermann entitled to a hearing before the Board of Regents?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Sindermann, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

Yes and yes. In a 5-3 decision, the Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit and held that Sindermann was entitled to a full trial in federal District Court and a hearing before the Board of Regents. The Court acknowledged that Sindermann did not have a contractual or tenure-based right to continued employment by Odessa Junior College. However, this lack was "immaterial to [Sindermann's] free speech claim." Writing for the majority, Justice Potter Stewart relied on Shelton v. Tucker and Keyishian v. Board of Regents in emphasizing that nonrenewal of a one-year teaching contract "may not be predicated on [a teacher's] exercise of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights." However, the Court stopped short of invalidating Sindermann's termination, as the Board of Regents' reasoning had not been established. While Sindermann had yet to "show that he has been deprived of an interest that could invoke procedural due process," the Court stated that his claim did "raise a genuine issue." While Odessa College did not have a formal tenure system, the Court recognized the possibility of a college having an "unwritten 'common law'" "in practice" that would grant "the equivalent of tenure." Given the policies of Odessa College, Sindermann was entitled to a hearing before the Board of Regents as well.

NLRB v. Scrivener

Wed, 12 Jan 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-267

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Scrivener

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 117 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, January 12, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1972

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

Murel v. Baltimore City Criminal Court

Tue, 28 Mar 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5276

Petitioner

Murel

Respondent

Baltimore City Criminal Court

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 355 (1972)

Argued

March 28-29, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Baltimore City Criminal Court, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Swarb v. Lennox

Tue, 09 Nov 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-6

Appellee

Lennox

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Swarb

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 191 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, November 9, 1971

Decided

Thursday, February 24, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Lennox, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

United States v. Bass

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-71

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bass

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 336 (1971)

Argued

Monday, October 18, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 20, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Bass, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets, National Firearms, Organized Crime Control, Comprehensive Crime Control, or Gun Control Acts, except for RICO (q.v.) portion

None

Laird v. Tatum

Mon, 27 Mar 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-288

Petitioner

Laird

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tatum

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

408 U.S. 1 (1972)

Argued

Monday, March 27, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Laird, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Brunette Machine Wks. v. Kockum Industries

Thu, 23 Mar 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-314

Petitioner

Brunette Machine Wks.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kockum Industries

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 706 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, March 23, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, June 7, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Kockum Industries, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1391

None

Alexander v. Louisiana

Mon, 06 Dec 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5026

Petitioner

Alexander

Respondent

Louisiana

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 625 (1972)

Argued

December 6-7, 1971

Decided

Monday, April 3, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Alexander, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Sarno v. Illinois Crime Comm'n

Tue, 11 Jan 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-7

Petitioner

Sarno

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois Crime Comm'n

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 482 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, January 11, 1972

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Illinois Crime Comm'n, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Papachristou v. City Of Jacksonville

Wed, 08 Dec 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5030

Petitioner

Papachristou

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

City Of Jacksonville

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 156 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, December 8, 1971

Decided

Thursday, February 24, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Papachristou, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

United States v. Topco Associates

Tue, 16 Nov 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-82

Appellee

Topco Associates

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 596 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, November 16, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, March 29, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Adams v. Williams

Mon, 10 Apr 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-283

Petitioner

Adams

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Williams

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 143 (1972)

Argued

Monday, April 10, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Fuentes v. Shevin

Tue, 09 Nov 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5039

Appellee

Shevin

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Fuentes

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 70-5138

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 67 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, November 9, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Fuentes, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Kleindienst v. Mandel

Tue, 18 Apr 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-16

Appellee

Mandel

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Kleindienst

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

408 U.S. 753 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, April 18, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 29, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Kleindienst, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

FPC v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.

Wed, 19 Apr 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1016

Petitioner

Federal Power Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana Power & Light Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 71-1040

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 621 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, April 19, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, June 7, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for FPC, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Natural Gas, or Natural Gas Policy Acts

None

Aikens v. California

Mon, 17 Jan 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

68-5027

Petitioner

Aikens

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 813 (1972)

Argued

Monday, January 17, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, June 7, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Younger v. Gilmore

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-9

Appellee

Gilmore

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Younger

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 15 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, October 14, 1971

Decided

Monday, November 8, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Gilmore, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Grayned v. City Of Rockford

Wed, 19 Jan 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5106

Appellee

City Of Rockford

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Grayned

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

408 U.S. 104 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, January 19, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

Split Vote

None

Lego v. Twomey

Thu, 11 Nov 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5037

Petitioner

Lego

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Twomey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

404 U.S. 477 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, November 11, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, January 12, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Twomey, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Willis v. Prudential Insurance Company Of America

Mon, 28 Feb 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5344

Petitioner

Willis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Prudential Insurance Company Of America

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 318 (1972)

Argued

Monday, February 28, 1972

Decided

Monday, March 20, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Prudential Insurance Company Of America, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Mancusi v. Stubbs

Mon, 17 Apr 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-237

Petitioner

Mancusi

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stubbs

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

408 U.S. 204 (1972)

Argued

Monday, April 17, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Mancusi, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

None

Groppi v. Leslie

Wed, 10 Nov 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-112

Petitioner

Groppi

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Leslie

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

404 U.S. 496 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, November 10, 1971

Decided

Thursday, January 13, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Groppi, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-93

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nash-Finch Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 138 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, October 19, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 6, 1971

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for NLRB, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2283

None

Victory Carriers, Inc. v. Law

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-54

Petitioner

Victory Carriers, Inc.

Respondent

Law

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 202 (1971)

Argued

October 18-19, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 13, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Victory Carriers, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp.

Tue, 11 Apr 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-315

Petitioner

Deepsouth Packing Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Laitram Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 518 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, April 11, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, May 30, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Deepsouth Packing Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 35 U.S.C. 271

None

Reed v. Reed

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

Location

Former Ada County Courthouse

514 West Jefferson Street Boise ID 83702

Boise, ID 83702

United States

43° 37' 0.5196" N, 116° 11' 52.5372" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-4

Appellee

Reed

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Reed

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 71 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, October 19, 1971

Decided

Monday, November 22, 1971

Advocates

Charles S. Stout (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Allen R. Derr (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Facts of the Case

The Idaho Probate Code specified that "males must be preferred to females" in appointing administrators of estates. After the death of their adopted son, both Sally and Cecil Reed sought to be named the administrator of their son's estate (the Reeds were separated). According to the Probate Code, Cecil was appointed administrator and Sally challenged the law in court.

Question

Did the Idaho Probate Code violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Reed, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the law's dissimilar treatment of men and women was unconstitutional. The Court argued that "[t]o give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . .[T]he choice in this context may not lawfully be mandated solely on the basis of sex."

Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Glass

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-32

Petitioner

Chemical Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pittsburgh Glass

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 70-39

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 157 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, October 20, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 6, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Pittsburgh Glass, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Roudebush v. Hartke

Mon, 13 Dec 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-66

Appellee

Hartke

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Roudebush

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 70-67

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 15 (1972)

Argued

Monday, December 13, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Roudebush, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 5, Paragraph 1: Congressional Qualifications

None

Strait v. Laird

Wed, 22 Mar 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-83

Petitioner

Strait

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Laird

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 341 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, March 22, 1972

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Strait, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2241

None

Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co.

Thu, 21 Oct 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-49

Petitioner

Hawaii

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Standard Oil Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 251 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, October 21, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, March 1, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Standard Oil Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

FPC v. Florida Power & Light Co.

Mon, 15 Nov 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-38

Petitioner

Federal Power Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida Power & Light Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

404 U.S. 453 (1972)

Argued

Monday, November 15, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, January 12, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for FPC, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Power

None

Carter v. Stanton

Mon, 08 Nov 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5082

Appellee

Stanton

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Carter

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 669 (1972)

Argued

Monday, November 8, 1971

Decided

Monday, April 3, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Carter, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Trbovich v. Mine Workers

Thu, 18 Nov 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-119

Petitioner

Trbovich

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mine Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

404 U.S. 528 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, November 18, 1971

Decided

Monday, January 17, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Trbovich, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure

None

Mcneil v. Director, Patuxent Institution

Thu, 20 Apr 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-5144

Petitioner

Mcneil

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Director, Patuxent Institution

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 245 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, April 20, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Milton v. Wainwright

Wed, 12 Jan 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5012

Petitioner

Milton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wainwright

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 371 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, January 12, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Wainwright, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: harmless error

None

Jefferson v. Hackney

Tue, 22 Feb 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5064

Appellee

Hackney

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Jefferson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 535 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, February 22, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, May 30, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Caplin v. Marine Midland Grace Trust Co.

Tue, 28 Mar 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-220

Petitioner

Caplin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Marine Midland Grace Trust Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 416 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, March 28, 1972

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Marine Midland Grace Trust Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Rabe v. Washington

Tue, 29 Feb 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-247

Petitioner

Rabe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Washington

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 313 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, February 29, 1972

Decided

Monday, March 20, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Gelbard v. United States

Mon, 27 Mar 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-110

Petitioner

David Gelbard

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 71-263

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

408 U.S. 41 (1972)

Argued

Monday, March 27, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1972

Facts of the Case

Perry Paul, an alleged bookmaker, and Jerome Zarowitz, a former executive of a Las Vegas casino, had their telephones tapped by federal agents. The agents recorded conversations between Paul and David Gelbard and between Zarowitz and Sidney Parnas. Gelbard and Parnas were called before a federal grand jury convened to investigate possible violations of federal gambling laws. When the government pressed Gelbard and Parnas to testify about these conversations, however, they refused to do so. Instead, they claimed that the wiretaps were illegal and argued that they should not be required to testify until given an opportunity to challenge the legality of the taps. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California found Gelbard and Parnas in contempt of court and committed them to custody until they agreed to testify.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court, stating that "a witness in a grand jury proceeding has no right to resort to a court to secure authoritative advance determination concerning evidentiary matters that arise, or may arise, or to exclude evidence to be used in such a proceeding." Gelbard and Parnas then sought certiorari from the Court, pointing to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacating contempt charges against a witness under similar circumstances.

Question

Can grand jury witnesses invoke the federal statute prohibiting illegal wiretapping as a defense to civil contempt charges based on their refusal to testify regarding information revealed by those illegal taps?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Gelbard, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets, National Firearms, Organized Crime Control, Comprehensive Crime Control, or Gun Control Acts, except for RICO (q.v.) portion

No, they cannot. In a 5-4 majority opinion written by Justice William Brennan, the Court held that the federal statute barring the use of evidence obtained through illegally intercepted communications also serves as a valid defense to civil contempt charges. Justice William O. Douglas concurred, expressing his belief that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against illegal searches and seizures provided enough protection in and of itself to suppress the illegally obtained communications even without the federal wiretapping statute. In a separate concurrence, Justice Byron White suggested that courts should look for a way other than suppression hearings, which are time consuming and can interrupt the flow of grand jury hearings, to resolve such conflicts. Justice William Rehnquist, joined by Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justices Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell, dissented. Rehnquist argued that the clear language of the statute in question, combined with its legislative history, prohibited its use as a defense to civil contempt charges arising from grand jury proceedings. To apply it in that situation would represented a "sharp break" with the "historical modus operandi of the grand jury."

Nebraska v. Iowa

Wed, 29 Mar 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

17 ORIG

Plaintiff

Nebraska

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Iowa

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 117 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, March 29, 1972

Decided

Monday, April 24, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Cole v. Richardson

Tue, 16 Nov 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-14

Appellee

Richardson

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Cole

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 676 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, November 16, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, April 18, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Cole, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley

Wed, 19 Jan 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Jones Commercial High School

610 South State Street Chicago IL 60605

Chicago, IL 60605

United States

41° 52' 27.8976" N, 87° 37' 39.0288" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-87

Petitioner

Police Dept. of Chicago

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mosley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

408 U.S. 92 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, January 19, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1972

Advocates

Richard L. Curry (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Harvey J. Barnett (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Chicago adopted an ordinance prohibiting picketing within 150 feet of a school during school hours; the law made an exception for peaceful labor picketing. Mosley had been picketing near a public high school; he was protesting "black discrimination." Mosley sought a declaration that the ordinance was unconstitutional.

Question

Does the Chicago ordinance violate the freedom of speech Clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

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

The exemption for labor picketing violated the equal protection clause. Government regulation of message content is presumed unconstitutional unless there are compelling justifications. And regulations that selectively exclude speakers from a public forum must undergo careful judicial examination to ensure the minimal degree of furthering an important government interest. Mosley fashions an important principle from the values of freedom and equality: equal freedom of expression.

United States v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc.

Wed, 12 Jan 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-72

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

404 U.S. 548 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, January 12, 1972

Decided

Monday, January 24, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 3 votes for Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Healy v. James

Tue, 28 Mar 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-452

Petitioner

Healy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

James

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

408 U.S. 169 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, March 28, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None