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

Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-300

Petitioner

Andrews

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisville & Nashville R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 320 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, March 22, 1972

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Railway Labor

None

Loper v. Beto

Thu, 13 Jan 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5388

Petitioner

Loper

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Beto

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 473 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, January 13, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, March 22, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

SEC v. Medical Committee For Human Rights

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-61

Petitioner

Securities and Exchange Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Medical Committee For Human Rights

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

404 U.S. 403 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, November 10, 1971

Decided

Monday, January 10, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for SEC, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Schneble v. Florida

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

68-5009

Petitioner

Schneble

Respondent

Florida

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 427 (1972)

Argued

January 17-18, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, March 21, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

California Transport v. Trucking Unlimited

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-92

Petitioner

California Transport

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Trucking Unlimited

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

404 U.S. 508 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, November 10, 1971

Decided

Thursday, January 13, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Trucking Unlimited, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Eisenstadt v. Baird

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-17

Petitioner

Baird

Respondent

Eisenstadt

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 438 (1972)

Argued

November 17-18, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, March 22, 1972

Advocates

Joseph R. Nolan (Argued the cause for appellant)

Joseph D. Tydings (Argued the cause for appellee)

Facts of the Case

William Baird gave away Emko Vaginal Foam to a woman following his Boston University lecture on birth control and over-population. Massachusetts charged Baird with a felony, to distribute contraceptives to unmarried men or women. Under the law, only married couples could obtain contraceptives; only registered doctors or pharmacists could provide them. Baird was not an authorized distributor of contraceptives.

Question

Did the Massachusetts law violate the right to privacy acknowledged in Griswold v. Connecticut and protected from state instrusion by the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

In a 6-to-1 decision, the Court struck down the Massachusetts law but not on privacy grounds. The Court held that the law's distinction between single and married individuals failed to satisfy the "rational basis test" of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Married couples were entitled to contraception under the Court's Griswold decision. Withholding that right to single persons without a rational basis proved the fatal flaw. Thus, the Court did not have to rely on Griswold to invalidate the Massachusetts statute. "If the right of privacy means anything, wrote Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. for the majority, "it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision to whether to bear or beget a child."

Townsend v. Swank

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5021

Appellee

Swank

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Townsend

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 70-5032

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 282 (1971)

Argued

Monday, November 8, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 20, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Townsend, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.

Tue, 21 Mar 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-322

Petitioner

The Bremen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Zapata Off-Shore Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 1 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, March 21, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Tucker

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-86

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tucker

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

404 U.S. 443 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, November 11, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, January 11, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Tucker, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Kastigar v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-117

Petitioner

Kastigar

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 441 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, January 11, 1972

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1972

Advocates

Hugh R. Manes (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

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

Facts of the Case

Kastigar cited his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination in refusing to testify before a grand jury, even though prosecutors had granted him immunity from the use of his testimony in subsequent criminal proceedings. He was found in contempt of court for failing to testify.

Question

Can the government, by granting immunity from the use of compelled testimony in future prosecutions, force a witness who invokes the Fifth Amendment to testify?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

The Court found that compelled testimony is legitimate given the grant of immunity. Justice Powell found that the protections of immunity that a congressional statute provided were "coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination" and "sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege."

Jackson v. Indiana

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5009

Petitioner

Jackson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Indiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 715 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, November 18, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, June 7, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-11

Petitioner

Chevron Oil Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Huson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 97 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, October 20, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 6, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Huson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 43 U.S.C. 1331

None

Commissioner v. First Security Bank Of Utah

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-305

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

First Security Bank Of Utah

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 394 (1972)

Argued

Monday, January 10, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, March 21, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for First Security Bank Of Utah, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Ford Motor Co. v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-113

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Ford Motor Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 562 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, November 18, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, March 29, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Doe v. Bolton

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-40

Appellee

Bolton

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Doe

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 179 (1973)

Argued

Monday, December 13, 1971

Reargued:

Wednesday, October 11, 1972

Decided

Monday, January 22, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Bolton, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Barker v. Wingo

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-5255

Petitioner

Barker

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wingo

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 514 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, April 11, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Wingo, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Speedy Trial

None

Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-47

Appellee

Central Baptist Church

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Diffenderfer

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

404 U.S. 412 (1972)

Argued

Monday, December 6, 1971

Decided

Monday, January 10, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Diffenderfer, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Erie Lackawanna R. Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-107

Petitioner

Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

Respondent

Erie Lackawanna R. Co.

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 340 (1972)

Argued

April 17-18, 1972

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Erie Lackawanna R. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Laird v. Nelms

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-573

Petitioner

Laird

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nelms

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 797 (1972)

Argued

Monday, April 17, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, June 7, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Laird, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Tort Claims, or Alien Tort Statute

None

United States v. Byrum

Wed, 01 Mar 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-308

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Byrum

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

408 U.S. 125 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, March 1, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Byrum, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Love v. Pullman Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5033

Petitioner

Love

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pullman Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

United States et al. v. Pullman Co., No. 70-37

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

404 U.S. 522 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, November 16, 1971

Decided

Monday, January 17, 1972

Advocates

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Love, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Richardson v. Wright

Thu, 13 Jan 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-161

Appellee

Wright

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Richardson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 70-5211

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 208 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, January 13, 1972

Decided

Thursday, February 24, 1972

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

NLRB v. Plasterers' Union

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-63

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Plasterers' Union

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Texas State Tile & Terrazzo Co., Inc., et al. v. Plasterers' Local Union No. 79, Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' International Assn., AFL-CIO, et al., No. 70-65

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 116 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, October 13, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 6, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for NLRB, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

In re Pappas

Wed, 23 Feb 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Black Panther Headquarters New Bedford, MA

United States

41° 38' 10.374" N, 70° 56' 3.138" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-94

Petitioner

Pappas

Respondent

Hayes

Consolidation

Branzburg v. Hayes, No. 70-85

United States v. Caldwell, No. 70-57

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

408 U.S. 665 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, February 23, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 29, 1972

Advocates

William Bradford Reynolds (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance)

E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Joseph J. Hurley (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Pappas, a television newsman and photographer working out of a Providence RI office of a New Bedford MA television station, was called to New Bedford to report on civil disorders involving fires and other turmoil. Pappas intended to cover a Black Panther news conference. Pappas was admitted inside the Panther headquarters after agreeing that he would not disclose anything he saw or heard. Pappas stayed for three hours. He did not write a story based on his experience. Pappas was later summoned before a grand jury but he refused to answer questions about events that took place inside Panther headquarters.

Question

Did the First Amendment's freedom of the press protect Pappas from appearing and testifying before the grand jury?

Conclusion

No. The Court found that requiring reporters to disclose confidential information to grand juries served a "compelling" and "paramount" state interest and did not violate the First Amendment. Justice White argued that since the cases involved no government intervention to impose prior restraint, and no command to publish sources or to disclose them indiscriminately, there was no constitutional violation. Because reporters receive information from sources in confidence does not privilege them to withhold that information during a government investigation; the average citizen is often forced to disclose information received in confidence when summoned to testify in court. Pappas must appear and give testimony.

Zicarelli v. New Jersey Investigation Comm'n

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

69-4

Appellee

New Jersey Investigation Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Zicarelli

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 472 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, January 11, 1972

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for New Jersey Investigation Comm'n, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Carleson v. Remillard

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-250

Appellee

Remillard

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Carleson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 598 (1972)

Argued

Monday, April 10, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, June 7, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Remillard, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

United States v. U.S. District Court

Thu, 24 Feb 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Location

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

231 W Lafayette Blvd # 827 Detroit MI 48226

Detroit, MI 48226

United States

42° 19' 50.2248" N, 83° 2' 59.9208" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-153

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S. District Court

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 297 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, February 24, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1972

Advocates

Arthur Kinoy (Argued the cause for the respondents Sinclair et al)

Robert C. Mardian (Argued the cause for the United States)

William T. Gossett (Argued the cause for the respondents the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan et al)

Facts of the Case

Investigating three people it suspected of conspiring to destroy government property and bombing a Central Intelligence Agency office, officials used electronic surveillance to record suspects' conversations. The wiretapping was conducted without a search warrant.

Question

Did the wiretapping violate the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for U.S. District Court, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

The Court held government officials were obligated to obtain a warrant before beginning electronic surveillance even if domestic security issues were involved. The "inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept" and the potential for abusing it to quell political dissent made the Fourth Amendment protections especially important when the government engaged in spying on its own citizens.

United States v. Mississippi Chemical Corp.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-52

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mississippi Chemical Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 298 (1972)

Argued

Monday, January 10, 1972

Decided

Monday, March 6, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

First Nat. City Bk. v. Banco Nacional De Cuba

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-295

Petitioner

First Nat. City Bk.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Banco Nacional De Cuba

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 759 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, February 22, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, June 7, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for First Nat. City Bk., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

S & E Contractors, Inc. v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-88

Petitioner

S & E Contractors, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 1 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, October 21, 1971

Reargued:

Monday, March 20, 1972

Decided

Monday, April 24, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for S & E Contractors, Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Branzburg v. Hayes

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

Location

The (Louisville) Courier Journal

525 W Broadway Louisville KY 40203

Louisville, KY 40203

United States

38° 14' 46.6188" N, 85° 45' 39.3336" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-85

Petitioner

Branzburg

Respondent

Hayes

Consolidation

In re Pappas, No. 70-94

United States v. Caldwell, No. 70-57

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

408 U.S. 665 (1972)

Argued

February 22-23, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 29, 1972

Advocates

Edgar A. Zingman (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

William Bradford Reynolds (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance)

Edwin A. Schroering, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

After observing and interviewing a number of people synthesizing and using drugs in a two-county area in Kentucky, Branzburg, a reporter, wrote a story which appeared in a Louisville newspaper. On two occasions he was called to testify before state grand juries which were investigating drug crimes. Branzburg refused to testify and potentially disclose the identities of his confidential sources. Similarly, in the companion cases of In re Pappas and United States v. Caldwell, two different reporters, each covering activity within the Black Panther organization, were called to testify before grand juries and reveal trusted information. Like Branzburg, both Pappas and Caldwell refused to appear before their respective grand juries.

Question

Is the requirement that news reporters appear and testify before state or federal grand juries an abridgement of the freedoms of speech and press as guaranteed by the First Amendment?

Conclusion

No. The Court found that requiring reporters to disclose confidential information to grand juries served a "compelling" and "paramount" state interest and did not violate the First Amendment. Justice White argued that since the case involved no government intervention to impose prior restraint, and no command to publish sources or to disclose them indiscriminately, there was no Constitutional violation. The fact that reporters receive information from sources in confidence does not privilege them to withhold that information during a government investigation; the average citizen is often forced to disclose information received in confidence when summoned to testify in court.

Aikens v. California (none)

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:27:46 +0000

Case Basics

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Roe v. Wade

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

Location

US District Court for the Northern District of Texas

1100 Commerce St Dallas TX 75242

Dallas, TX 75242

United States

32° 46' 43.8744" N, 96° 48' 7.6284" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-18

Petitioner

Jane Roe

Respondent

Henry Wade

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Argued

Monday, December 13, 1971

Reargued:

Wednesday, October 11, 1972

Decided

Monday, January 22, 1973

Advocates

Sarah R. Weddington (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Jay Floyd (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Robert C. Flowers (Rergued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent -- Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall.

Question

Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Roe, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.

Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis

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

Location

Former Moose Lodge No. 107

225 State Street Harrisburg PA 17101

Harrisburg, PA 17101

United States

40° 15' 48.0816" N, 76° 53' 7.6488" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-75

Appellee

Irvis

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Moose Lodge No. 107

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 163 (1972)

Argued

Monday, February 28, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1972

Advocates

Harry J. Rubin (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Frederick Bernays Wiener (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Facts of the Case

K. Leroy Irvis, a black man who was a guest of a white member of the Moose Lodge No. 107, was refused service at the club's dining room because of his race. The bylaws of the Lodge limited membership to white male Caucasians. Irvis challenged the club's refusal to serve him, arguing that the action of the Pennsylvania liquor board issuing the Lodge a license made the club's discrimination "state action."

Question

Did the discriminatory practices violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Moose Lodge No. 107, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

No. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Moose Lodge's refusal to serve food and beverages to Irvis because he was black did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court noted that the state action doctrine did not necessarily apply to all private entities that received benefits or services from the government; otherwise, the Court reasoned, all private associations that received electricity, water, and fire protection would be subject to state regulation. The Court found that the Moose Lodge "a private social club in a private building," and thus not subject to the Equal Protection Clause.

Duncan v. Tennessee

Thu, 13 Jan 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5122

Petitioner

Duncan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tennessee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 127 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, January 13, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Tennessee, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

James v. Strange

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-11

Appellee

Strange

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

James

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 128 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, March 22, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Flower v. United States

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:27:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1180

Petitioner

Flower

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 197 (1972)

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Flower, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Wisconsin v. Yoder

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

Location

Wisconsin State Capitol

2 East Main Street Madison WI 53702

Madison, WI 53702

United States

43° 4' 28.0272" N, 89° 23' 2.8392" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-110

Petitioner

Wisconsin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yoder

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 205 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, December 8, 1971

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1972

Advocates

John W. Calhoun (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

William B. Ball (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, both members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public schools until age 16. The three parents refused to send their children to such schools after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs.

Question

Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Yoder, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Free Exercise of Religion

In a unamimous decision, the Court held that individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade. In the majority opinion by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Court found that the values and programs of secondary school were "in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion," and that an additional one or two years of high school would not produce the benefits of public education cited by Wisconsin to justify the law.Justice William O. Douglas filed a partial dissent but joined with the majority regarding Yoder.

Lake Carriers' Assn. v. Macmullan

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-422

Petitioner

Macmullan

Respondent

Lake Carriers' Assn.

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 498 (1972)

Argued

March 22-23, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, May 30, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Lake Carriers' Assn., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2201

None

Reliance Electric Co. v. Emerson Electric Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-79

Petitioner

Reliance Electric Co.

Respondent

Emerson Electric Co.

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

404 U.S. 418 (1972)

Argued

November 10-11, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, January 11, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Emerson Electric Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Nemitz

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-97

Petitioner

Norfolk & Western R. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nemitz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 37 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, October 21, 1971

Decided

Monday, November 15, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Nemitz, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

Socialist Labor Party v. Gilligan

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-21

Appellee

Gilligan

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Socialist Labor Party

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 583 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, March 23, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, May 30, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Gilligan, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Ftc v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-70

Petitioner

Ftc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sperry & Hutchinson Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 233 (1972)

Argued

Monday, November 15, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, March 1, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Ftc, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Trade Commission

None

Mitchum v. Foster

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-27

Appellee

Foster

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mitchum

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 225 (1972)

Argued

Monday, December 13, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Mitchum, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2283

None

Colten v. Kentucky

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-404

Appellee

Kentucky

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Colten

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 104 (1972)

Argued

Monday, April 17, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Biswell

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-81

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Biswell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 311 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, March 28, 1972

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Gooding v. Wilson

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

Location

Georgia State Capitol

206 Washington Street Atlanta GA 30334

Atlanta, GA 30334

United States

33° 44' 56.9724" N, 84° 23' 16.6488" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-26

Petitioner

Wilson

Respondent

Gooding

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 518 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, December 8, 1971

Decided

Thursday, March 23, 1972

Facts of the Case

A Georgia state court convicted Johnny Wilson of violating a state statute. The statute provided that "[a]ny person who shall, without provocation, use to or of another, and in his presence . . . opprobrious words or abusive language, tending to cause a breach of the peace . . . shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." On appeal, Mr. Wilson argued that the statute violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Georgia Supreme Court rejected the argument. Mr. Wilson successfully sought habeas corpus relief from a Georgia federal district court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Question

Does the Georgia statute prohibiting the use of "opprobrious words or abusive language, tending to cause a breach of the peace" violate the First Amendment as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Wilson, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. The Supreme Court held that the Georgia statute was unconstitutional. With Justice William J. Brennan writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Quoting Speiser v. Randall, the Court noted that "the separation of legitimate from illegitimate speech calls for more sensitive tools than (Georgia) has supplied."

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger dissented. He disagreed with not only the manner in which the majority reached its decision, but also its conclusion. Ultimately, he argued that the statute was narrowly tailored and did not suppress or deter "important protected speech." Justice Harry A. Blackmun also dissented, joined by Chief Justice Burger. He found it implausible that a state could not restrict speech that was as wildly offensive as in this case.

Huffman v. Boersen

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-5097

Petitioner

Huffman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Boersen

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 337 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, April 19, 1972

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5112

Petitioner

Weber

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 164 (1972)

Argued

Monday, February 28, 1972

Decided

Monday, April 24, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Weber, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Washington v. General Motors Corp.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

45 ORIG

Petitioner

Washington

Respondent

General Motors Corp.

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 109 (1972)

Argued

February 28-29, 1972

Decided

Monday, April 24, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for General Motors Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Sierra Club v. Morton

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-34

Petitioner

Sierra Club

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Morton

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 727 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, November 17, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, April 19, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Morton, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Administrative Procedure, or Administrative Orders Review

None

Boyd v. Dutton

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:27:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5075

Petitioner

Boyd

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dutton

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 1 (1972)

Decided

Tuesday, February 22, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Boyd, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. v. Thompson

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-286

Petitioner

Iowa Beef Packers, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thompson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 228 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, January 12, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, February 29, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Thompson, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Supt. Of Insurance v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-60

Petitioner

Supt. Of Insurance

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bankers Life & Cas. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 6 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, October 13, 1971

Decided

Monday, November 8, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Supt. Of Insurance, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Board of Regents v. Roth

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

Location

University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh

800 Algoma Blvd Oshkosh WI 54901

Oshkosh, WI 54901

United States

44° 1' 26.8068" N, 88° 33' 6.0948" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-162

Petitioner

Board of Regents of State Colleges

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

David Roth

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

408 U.S. 564 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, January 18, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 29, 1972

Facts of the Case

David Roth was hired under a one-year contract to teach political science at Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh. He was informed that he would not be rehired at the end of his contract. No reasons were given for this decision. Roth brought suit against the university claiming that (1) the real reason for his non-retention was his criticism of the university administration violating his right to free speech protected by the Fourteenth Amendment; and (2) the university's failure to advise him of the reason for its decision violated his right to procedural due process. Roth won on the second claim. It was upheld on appeal.

Question

Does the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require that a state university provide a one-year contract employee a hearing and reasons when he is not retained after the termination of his contract?

Conclusion

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

In an opinion by Justice Potter Stewart, the court held 5-3 that Roth had no protected interest in continued employment, as he had completed his contracted term, and therefore was no Fourteenth Amendment protection.

Vermont v. New York

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

50 ORIG

Plaintiff

Vermont

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

New York

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 186 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, February 29, 1972

Decided

Monday, April 24, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Brooks v. Tennessee

Tue, 21 Mar 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-5313

Petitioner

Brooks

Respondent

Tennessee

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 605 (1972)

Argued

March 21-22, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, June 7, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Brooks, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Schneble v. Florida (none)

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:27:47 +0000

Case Basics

Petitioner

Schneble

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 427

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Combs v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-517

Petitioner

Combs

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

408 U.S. 224 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, April 11, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Gravel v. United States

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

Location

Senator Gavel's Office

"Constitution Avenue and 1st Street**** NE" Washington DC 20002

Washington, DC 20002

United States

38° 53' 31.218" N, 77° 0' 21.348" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1017

Petitioner

Gravel

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

United States v. Gravel, No. 71-1026

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

408 U.S. 606 (1972)

Argued

April 19-20, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 29, 1972

Advocates

Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (Argued the cause for the Senate of the United States as amicus curiae)

Robert J. Reinstein (Argued the cause for Gravel)

William B. Saxbe (Argued the cause for the Senate of the United States as amicus curiae)

Charles L. Fishman (Argued the cause for Gravel)

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

Facts of the Case

In 1971, Senator Mike Gravel received a copy of the Pentagon Papers: a set of classified documents concerning U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war. Gravel then introduced the study, in its entirety, into the record of a Senate Subcommittee meeting. Gravel also arranged for the private publication of the papers by the Beacon Press. A federal grand jury subpoenaed Leonard Rodberg, one of Gravel's aides, to testify about his role in the acquisition and publication of the papers.

Question

Did the subpoena of Senator Gravel's aide violate the Speech and Debate Clause of Article I of the Constitution?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Gravel, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 1: Speech or Debate Clause

Yes. The Court held that because the work of aides was critical to the performance of legislative tasks and duties, they were nothing less than legislators' "alter egos" and thus immune from subpoenas by the Speech and Debate Clause. Aides were exempted from grand jury questioning so long as Senators invoked the privilege on their behalf. Moreover, the Court held that the protections of the Speech and Debate Clause did not extend beyond the legislative sphere, ruling that Senator Gravel's arrangements with the Beacon Press were not constitutionally protected.

Grubbs v. General Electric Credit Corp.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-257

Petitioner

Grubbs

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

General Electric Credit Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 699 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, March 23, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, April 18, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Kirby v. Illinois

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5061

Petitioner

Kirby

Respondent

Illinois

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 682 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, November 11, 1971

Reargued:

March 20-21, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, June 7, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Illinois, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Moore v. Illinois

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

69-5001

Petitioner

Moore

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

408 U.S. 786 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, January 18, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 29, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Steel

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-227

Appellee

Allegheny-Ludlum Steel

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 742 (1972)

Argued

Monday, March 27, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, June 7, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 49 U.S.C. 1

None

Adams v. Illinois

Tue, 07 Dec 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5038

Petitioner

Adams

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 278 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, December 7, 1971

Decided

Monday, March 6, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Illinois, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Operating Engineers v. Flair Builders, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-41

Petitioner

Operating Engineers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Flair Builders, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 487 (1972)

Argued

Monday, April 10, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, May 30, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Operating Engineers, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Port Of Portland v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-31

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Port Of Portland

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

408 U.S. 811 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, October 20, 1971

Decided

Thursday, June 29, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Port Of Portland, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

Richardson v. Belcher

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-53

Appellee

Belcher

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Richardson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 78 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, October 13, 1971

Decided

Monday, November 22, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bd. Of Regents v. New Left Education Project

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-55

Appellee

New Left Education Project

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Bd. Of Regents

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

404 U.S. 541 (1972)

Argued

Monday, December 6, 1971

Decided

Monday, January 24, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Bd. Of Regents, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2281

None

United States v. Generes

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-28

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Generes

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 93 (1972)

Argued

Monday, November 8, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Dukes v. Warden

Tue, 21 Mar 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-5172

Petitioner

Dukes

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Warden

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 250 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, March 21, 1972

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Warden, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Santobello v. New York

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-98

Petitioner

Santobello

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 257 (1971)

Argued

Monday, November 15, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 20, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Santobello, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Shadwick v. City Of Tampa

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-5445

Appellee

City Of Tampa

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Shadwick

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 345 (1972)

Argued

Monday, April 10, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for City Of Tampa, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

NLRB v. Burns Security Services

Thu, 13 Jan 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-123

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Burns Security Services

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 71-198

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 272 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, January 13, 1972

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Wright v. Council Of City Of Emporia

Wed, 01 Mar 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-188

Petitioner

Wright

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Council Of City Of Emporia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 451 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, March 1, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Central Hardware Co. v. NLRB

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-223

Petitioner

Central Hardware Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 539 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, April 18, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Central Hardware Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Peters v. Kiff

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-5078

Petitioner

Peters

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kiff

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 493 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, February 22, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Parisi v. Davidson

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-91

Petitioner

Parisi

Respondent

Davidson

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 34 (1972)

Argued

October 19-20, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Parisi, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. Louisiana

Tue, 14 Dec 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

9 ORIG

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Louisiana

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 388 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, December 14, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 20, 1971

Advocates

Erwin N. Griswold (on behalf of petitioner)

Victor A. Sachse (on behalf of respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Orito

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-69

Appellee

Orito

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 139 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, January 19, 1972

Reargued:

Tuesday, November 7, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Humphrey v. Cady

Tue, 07 Dec 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5004

Petitioner

Humphrey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cady

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 504 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, December 7, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, March 22, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Humphrey, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Mcclanahan v. Morauer & Hartzell, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5097

Petitioner

Mcclanahan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Morauer & Hartzell, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 16 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, October 21, 1971

Decided

Monday, November 8, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Morauer & Hartzell, Inc., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-78

Petitioner

Affiliated Ute Citizens

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 128 (1972)

Argued

Monday, October 18, 1971

Decided

Monday, April 24, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Affiliated Ute Citizens, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1399

None

Haines v. Kerner

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5025

Petitioner

Haines

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kerner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

404 U.S. 519 (1972)

Argued

Monday, December 6, 1971

Decided

Thursday, January 13, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Haines, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

North Carolina v. Rice

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-77

Petitioner

North Carolina

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rice

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 244 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, October 12, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, December 14, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for North Carolina, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Pipefitters v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-74

Petitioner

Pipefitters

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 385 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, January 11, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1972

Advocates

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Pipefitters, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Election Campaign

None

Britt v. North Carolina

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5041

Petitioner

Britt

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

North Carolina

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 226 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, October 14, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 13, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for North Carolina, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Giglio v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-29

Petitioner

Giglio

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 150 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, October 12, 1971

Decided

Thursday, February 24, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Scotland Neck City Board Of Education

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-130

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Scotland Neck City Board of Education

Consolidation

Cotton et al. v. Scotland Neck City Board of Education et al., No. 70-187

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 484 (1972)

Argued

February 29-March 1, 1972

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for petitioner in No. 70-130)

Adam Stein (argued the cause for petitioners in No. 70-187)

C. Kitchin Josey (argued the cause for respondents in both cases)

William T. Joyner (argued the cause for respondents in both cases)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Furman v. Georgia

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

Location

House where there murder took place

508 West 63rd Street Savannah GA 31405

Savannah, GA 31405

United States

32° 2' 20.8536" N, 81° 6' 46.4076" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

69-5003

Petitioner

Furman

Respondent

Georgia

Consolidation

Jackson v. Georgia, No. 69-5030

Branch v. Texas, No. 69-5031

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

408 U.S. 238 (1972)

Argued

Monday, January 17, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 29, 1972

Advocates

Dorothy T. Beasley (Argued the cause for respondent)

Anthony G. Amsterdam (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He attempted to flee, and in doing so tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went off and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death (Two other death penalty cases were decided along with Furman: Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas. These cases concern the constitutionality of the death sentence for rape and murder convictions, respectively).

Question

Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Furman, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Yes. The Court's one-page per curiam opinion held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. In over two hundred pages of concurrence and dissents, the justices articulated their views on this controversial subject. Only Justices Brennan and Marshall believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional in all instances. Other concurrences focused on the arbitrary nature with which death sentences have been imposed, often indicating a racial bias against black defendants. The Court's decision forced states and the national legislature to rethink their statutes for capital offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner.

Smith v. Florida

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5055

Petitioner

Smith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 172 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, December 8, 1971

Decided

Thursday, February 24, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Morrissey v. Brewer

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-5103

Petitioner

Morrissey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brewer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

408 U.S. 471 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, April 11, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 29, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mayer v. City Of Chicago

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5040

Appellee

City Of Chicago

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mayer

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 189 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, October 14, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 13, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Midwest Video Corp.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-506

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Midwest Video Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 649 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, April 19, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, June 7, 1972

Advocates

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Illinois v. City Of Milwaukee

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

49 ORIG

Plaintiff

Illinois

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

City Of Milwaukee

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 91 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, February 29, 1972

Decided

Monday, April 24, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for City Of Milwaukee, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1251

None

Lynch v. Household Finance Corp.

Tue, 07 Dec 1971 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5058

Appellee

Household Finance Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lynch

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 538 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, December 7, 1971

Decided

Thursday, March 23, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Lynch, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1343

None

Miller v. California

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

Location

Collectors Publications

1016 East Cypress Street Covina CA 91722

Covina, CA 91722

United States

34° 5' 38.0112" N, 117° 54' 39.7224" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-73

Appellant

Marvin Miller

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

California

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 15 (1973)

Argued

January 18-19, 1972

Reargued:

Tuesday, November 7, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1973

Advocates

Burton Marks (Reargued the cause for the appellant)

Michael R. Capizzi (Reargued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of "adult" material, was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. Some unwilling recipients of Miller's brochures complained to the police, initiating the legal proceedings.

Question

Is the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee?

Conclusion

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

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that obscene materials did not enjoy First Amendment protection. The Court modified the test for obscenity established in Roth v. United States and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, holding that "[t]he basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. . . (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." The Court rejected the "utterly without redeeming social value" test of the Memoirs decision.

D. H. Overmyer Co. v. Frick Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

69-5

Petitioner

D. H. Overmyer Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Frick Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 174 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, November 9, 1971

Decided

Thursday, February 24, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Wilwording v. Swenson

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:27:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5308

Petitioner

Wilwording

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Swenson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 249 (1971)

Decided

Tuesday, December 14, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Evansville Airport v. Delta Airlines

Wed, 23 Feb 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-99

Petitioner

Evansville Airport

Respondent

Delta Airlines

Consolidation

Northeast Airlines, Inc., et al. v. New Hampshire Aeronautics Commission et al., No. 70-212

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 707 (1972)

Argued

February 23-24, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, April 19, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Evansville Airport, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner

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

Location

Lloyd Center Mall

2201 Lloyd Center Portland OR 97232

Portland, OR 97232

United States

45° 31' 57.2052" N, 122° 39' 12.4848" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-492

Petitioner

Lloyd Corp. Ltd.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Donald Tanner et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 551 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, April 18, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1972

Advocates

George Black Jr. (argued the cause for the petitioner)

Carl R. Neil (argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Donald Tanner was a Vietnam War protestor who was distributing anti-war handbills inside Lloyd Center Mall in Portland, Oregon. The handbills were unrelated to the operations of Lloyd Center. Lloyd Center was privately owned by Lloyd Corporation, which prohibited the distribution of handbills inside the mall. While distributing handbills, Tanner and other protestors were informed by mall security that they should stop their distribution or be subject to arrest. The protestors ended their distribution, left the mall, and filed suit against Lloyd Corporation in United States District Court for the District of Oregon alleging their First Amendment right to free speech had been violated. The District Court ruled in their favor. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Question

Were Tanner and the other protestors' First Amendment right to free speech violated by Lloyd's refusal to allow them to distribute handbills on mall property?

Conclusion

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

No. In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that Tanner was not entitled to distribute handbills within Lloyd Center. Writing for the majority, Justice Lewis F. Powell contrasted this case with Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza, which allowed protestors to picket a shopping center when their picketing was "directly related" to the shopping center and no "reasonable opportunities to convey their message…were available." Here, Tanner's were unrelated to the operations of the mall, and the protestors had an alternative on the sidewalks immediately outside the mall, which were owned by the City of Portland. Powell characterized equating public property with private property intended for public use – such as the mall – as "reach[ing] too far." Therefore, Tanner and the protestors did not have a First Amendment right to distribute their handbills within the mall.

Pennsylvania v. New York

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

40 ORIG

Plaintiff

Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

New York

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 206 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, March 29, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for New York, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None