Cases - 1972 term

Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board

Mon, 04 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-5656

Petitioner

Philpott

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Essex County Welfare Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 413 (1973)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, January 10, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mcginnis v. Royster

Mon, 11 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-718

Appellee

Royster

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mcginnis

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 263 (1973)

Argued

Monday, December 11, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, February 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ward v. Village Of Monroeville

Tue, 17 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-496

Petitioner

Ward

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Village Of Monroeville

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 57 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, October 17, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, November 14, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Chicago, B. &. Q. R. Co.

Mon, 26 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-90

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chicago, B. &. Q. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 401 (1973)

Argued

Monday, February 26, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. NLRB

Mon, 26 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1417

Petitioner

Machinists & Aerospace Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 84 (1973)

Argued

Monday, March 26, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1973

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

Cady v. Dombrowski

Wed, 21 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-586

Petitioner

Cady

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dombrowski

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 433 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1973

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Scrap

Wed, 28 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-535

Appellee

Scrap

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 72-562

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 669 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, February 28, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Environmental Policy

None

Gagnon v. Scarpelli

Tue, 09 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1225

Petitioner

Gagnon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Scarpelli

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 778 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, January 9, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Gagnon, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Heller v. New York

Tue, 14 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1043

Petitioner

Heller

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 483 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, November 14, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Illinois v. Somerville

Mon, 13 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-692

Petitioner

Illinois

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Somerville

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 458 (1973)

Argued

Monday, November 13, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, February 27, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Illinois, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

United States v. Mason

Wed, 18 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-654

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mason

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 72-606

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 391 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Morris v. Weinberger

Wed, 17 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6698

Petitioner

Morris

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Weinberger

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 422 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, January 17, 1973

Decided

Thursday, February 22, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Neil v. Biggers

Wed, 18 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-586

Petitioner

Neil

Respondent

Biggers

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 188 (1972)

Argued

October 18-19, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, December 6, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Neil, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Swenson v. Stidham

Wed, 11 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-224

Petitioner

Swenson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stidham

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 224 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1972

Decided

Thursday, December 7, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Gaffney v. Cummings

Mon, 26 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1476

Petitioner

Cummings

Respondent

Gaffney

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 735 (1973)

Argued

February 26-27, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Tonasket v. Washington

Tue, 12 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1031

Petitioner

Washington

Respondent

Tonasket

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 451 (1973)

Argued

December 12-13, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, April 24, 1973

Advocates

Robert L. Pirtle (for the appellant)

Slade Gorton (Attorney General of Washington, for the appellees)

Alvin J. Ziontz ( for Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation et al. as amici curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Russell

Tue, 27 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1585

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Russell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 423 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, April 24, 1973

Advocates

Thomas H. S. Brucker (By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the respondent)

Philip A. Lacovara (Argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

At the conclusion of an undercover drug investigation, Richard Russell was arrested by Washington police and eventually convicted in a district court for drug manufacturing crimes. Russell challenged his conviction as the result of unconstitutional entrapment practices, since an undercover agent supplied him with an essential ingredient of his drug manufacturing operation. On appeal from an adverse Court of Appeals decision, the Supreme Court granted the government certiorari.

Question

Does an undercover law enforcement officer's participation in criminal conduct constitute entrapment in violation of the Fifth Amendment's due process protections?

Conclusion

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

Not always. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that law enforcement officers may participate in the procedural commission of certain crimes such as drug manufacturing, so long as they do not implant criminal designs in the minds of the accused. In Russell's case, the investigated drug operations were in place long before undercover agents infiltrated them. Moreover, the ingredients contributed by the agents could have been acquired independently by Russell and his co-conspirators. As such, none of the agents' participatory activities amounted to entrapment.

Fri v. Sierra Club

Wed, 18 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-804

Petitioner

Fri

Respondent

Sierra Club

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 541 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1973

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Sierra Club, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Richmond School Board v. Board Of Educ.

Mon, 23 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-549

Petitioner

Richmond School Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Board Of Educ.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Bradley v. State Board of Education of Virginia, No. 72-550

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 92 (1973)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Board Of Educ., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. First Nat. Bancorporation

Mon, 16 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-703

Petitioner

First Nat. Bancorporation

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 577 (1973)

Argued

October 16-17, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, February 28, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Indiana Employment Division v. Burney

Thu, 07 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1119

Appellee

Burney

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Indiana Employment Division

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 540 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, December 7, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, January 17, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Indiana Employment Division, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Almota Farmers Elevator & Whse. Co. v. U.S.

Wed, 18 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-951

Petitioner

Almota Farmers Elevator & Whse. Co.

Respondent

U.S.

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 470 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, October 18, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, January 16, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Almota Farmers Elevator & Whse. Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

Columbia Broadcasting v. Democratic Comm.

Mon, 16 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-863

Petitioner

Columbia Broadcasting

Respondent

Democratic Comm.

Consolidation

No. 71-864

No. 71-865

No. 71-866

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 94 (1973)

Argued

Monday, October 16, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mahan v. Howell

Tue, 12 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-364

Petitioner

Howell

Respondent

Mahan

Consolidation

No. 71-373

No. 71-444

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 315 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, December 12, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, February 21, 1973

Advocates

Andrew P. Miller (Argued the cause for the appellants in No. 71-364)

Henry E. Howell, Jr. (Pro se, argued the cause for appellees Howell et al. in both cases)

Harry Frazier, III (Argued the cause for the appellant in No. 71-373)

Clive L. DuVal, II (Pro se, argued the cause in both cases)

Facts of the Case

In 1971, the Virginia legislature reapportioned itself. The plan for the House of Representatives provided for 100 representatives from 52 districts with each House member representing an average of 46,485 constituents(with a variance between largest and smallest being 16.4 percent, compared to the ideal 3.89 percent). Henry Howell challenged the plan as unconstitutional because its population deviations were too large to satisfy the principle of "one person, one vote." This case was decided together with City of Virginia Beach v. Howell and Weinberg v. Prichard.

Question

Was the Virginia reapportionment plan invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

The Court found that the plan was constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause as described in Reynolds v. Sims. The Virginia plan is not to be judged by the more stringent congressional standards in Section 2 of Article I. The Equal Protection Clause requires a state to make an "honest and good faith effort" to construct districts of as nearly equal population as practicable. Some deviations from the equal population principle are valid if based on legitimate considerations of a "rational state policy." The Virginia plan advanced the policy of reapportionment without sacrificing substantial equality.

Colgrove v. Battin

Wed, 17 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1442

Petitioner

Colgrove

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Battin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 149 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, January 17, 1973

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Battin, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 7: Seventh Amendment

None

Committee For Public Education v. Nyquist

Mon, 16 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Location

New York State Capitol

24 Eagle Street Albany NY 12207

Albany, NY 12207

United States

42° 39' 9.684" N, 73° 45' 27.1764" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-694

Petitioner

Committee For Public Education

Respondent

Ewald B. Nyquist, Commissioner of Education of New York

Consolidation

No. 72-753, Anderson v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty

No. 72-791, Nyquist, Commissioner of Education of New York v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty

No. 72-929, Cherry v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 756 (1973)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Advocates

Leo Pfeffer (argued the cause for appellants in No. 72-694 and for appellees in Nos. 72-753, 72-791, and 72-929)

Jean M. Coon (Assistant Solicitor General of New York, argued the cause for Nyquist et al., appellees in No. 72-694 and appellants in No. 72-791)

Porter R. Chandler (argued the cause for appellants in No. 72-929 and for appellees Boylan et al. in No. 72-694)

John F. Haggerty (argued the cause for appellant in No. 72-753)

Facts of the Case

New York enacted Chapter 414 of its Education and Tax Laws, which created aid programs for nonpublic elementary and secondary schools. These amendments included Section 1, which provided a grant for the maintenance and repair of schools that served many low-income students; Section 2, which provided tuition reimbursement for low-income parents; and Sections 3, 4, and 5, which provided tax relief for parents who did not qualify for tuition reimbursement. After the institution of these amendments, the Campaign for Public Education and Religious Liberty challenged the amendments in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that these amendments violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The District Court held that Sections 1 and 2 violated the Establishment Clause, but not Sections 3, 4, and 5.

Question

Did Sections 1-5 of Chapter 414 of New York's Education and Tax Laws violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Committee For Public Education, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

Yes to all sections. In a 6-3 decision, the Court affirmed the District Court on maintenance grant and tuition reimbursement and reversed the District Court on income tax relief. The Court cited earlier decisions that established that under the Establishment Clause, a law must "first, reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose, second, must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and third, must avoid excessive government entanglement with religion." Writing for the majority, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. acknowledged that New York's interest in creating a positive educational environment was a clearly secular purpose. Section 1, however, did not limit the use of the grants towards maintaining facilities used for secular purposes. This distinguished Section 1 from other aid programs approved by the Court in the past in Board of Education v. Allen and Tilton v. Richardson. Since "all or practically all" of the schools that qualified were affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, the maintenance grants would "subsidize and advance the religious mission of sectarian schools" in violation of the Establishment Clause. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justice William H. Rehnquist concurred in this part of the judgment. The Court also struck down Section 2, as the tuition reimbursements did not "guarantee the separation between secular and religious educational functions." While the Court recognized the possibility that reimbursement money would not end up in the hands of religious schools, the grants would attempt to "enhance the opportunities of the poor to choose between public and nonpublic education," which would advance religion. Lastly, the Court reversed the District Court with regard to Sections 3, 4, and 5, ruling that effect of tax relief was similar to that of the tuition reimbursement and therefore unconstitutional. The Court in Walz v. Tax Commission upheld New York's property tax exemptions for religious organizations. However, the tax exemption was designed to prevent government oppression of religion through taxation, not for the promotion of religion.

City Of Kenosha v. Bruno

Wed, 18 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-658

Appellee

Bruno

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

City Of Kenosha

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 507 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for City Of Kenosha, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Moor v. County Of Alameda

Tue, 27 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-10

Petitioner

Moor

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

County Of Alameda

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 693 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Moor, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Sloan v. Lemon

Mon, 16 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-459

Appellee

Lemon

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Sloan

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 72-620

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 825 (1973)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Lemon, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

None

Associated Enterprises, Inc. v. Toltec District

Mon, 08 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1069

Appellee

Toltec District

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Associated Enterprises, Inc.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 743 (1973)

Argued

Monday, January 8, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, March 20, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bronston v. United States

Wed, 15 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1011

Petitioner

Bronston

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 352 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, November 15, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, January 10, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bronston, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1621

None

Kern County Land Co. v. Occidental Corp.

Tue, 05 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1059

Petitioner

Kern County Land Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Occidental Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 582 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1972

Decided

Monday, May 7, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Occidental Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

NLRB v. Textile Workers

Mon, 13 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-711

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Textile Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 213 (1972)

Argued

Monday, November 13, 1972

Decided

Thursday, December 7, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for NLRB, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

O'brien v. Brown

Thu, 17 May 2012 18:29:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-34

Petitioner

O'brien

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brown

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 72-35

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 1 (1972)

Decided

Friday, July 7, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co.

Mon, 15 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-685

Petitioner

Lehnhausen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lake Shore Auto Parts Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 71-691

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 356 (1973)

Argued

Monday, January 15, 1973

Decided

Thursday, February 22, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Keeble v. United States

Tue, 27 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-5323

Petitioner

Keeble

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 205 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Keeble, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1153

None

United States v. Enmons

Mon, 04 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1193

Appellee

Enmons

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 396 (1973)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1972

Decided

Thursday, February 22, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Enmons, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1951

None

United States v. Jim

Thu, 17 May 2012 18:29:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1509

Appellee

Jim

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 71-1612

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 80 (1972)

Decided

Monday, November 20, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Logue v. United States

Tue, 24 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-656

Petitioner

Logue

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 521 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, April 24, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Logue, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Tort Claims, or Alien Tort Statute

None

Cupp v. Murphy

Tue, 20 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-212

Petitioner

Cupp

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Murphy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 291 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Cupp, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning

Tue, 17 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-394

Petitioner

Weinberger

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hynson, Westcott & Dunning

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 72-414

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 609 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, April 17, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic, and related statutes

None

Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Wichita Bd. Of Trade

Wed, 28 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-214

Appellee

Wichita Bd. Of Trade

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 72-433

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 800 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, February 28, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Chambers v. Mississippi

Wed, 15 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-5908

Petitioner

Chambers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mississippi

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 284 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, November 15, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, February 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Chambers, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

None

Hall v. Cole

Wed, 21 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-630

Petitioner

Hall

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cole

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 1 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Cole, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure

None

Usv Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Weinberger

Tue, 17 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-666

Petitioner

Usv Pharmaceutical Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Weinberger

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 655 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, April 17, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Weinberger, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic, and related statutes

None

Levitt v. Committee For Public Education

Mon, 19 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-269

Petitioner

Committee For Public Education

Respondent

Levitt

Consolidation

No. 72-270

No. 72-271

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 472 (1973)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Committee For Public Education, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

None

Union Oil Co. v. The San Jacinto

Tue, 17 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-900

Petitioner

Union Oil Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

The San Jacinto

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 140 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, October 17, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, December 5, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Union Oil Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 33 U.S.C. 192

None

Gosa v. Mayden

Mon, 04 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6314

Petitioner

Gosa

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mayden

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 71-1398

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 665 (1973)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mayden, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States

Wed, 11 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-366

Petitioner

Tidewater Oil Co.

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 151 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, December 6, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 29

None

Georgia v. United States

Wed, 21 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-75

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Georgia

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 526 (1973)

Argued

February 21-22, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 7, 1973

Advocates

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

None