Cases - 1973 term

Codispoti v. Pennsylvania

Mon, 25 Mar 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-5615

Petitioner

Codispoti

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pennsylvania

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 506 (1974)

Argued

Monday, March 25, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, June 26, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah

Mon, 12 Nov 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1195

Petitioner

American Pipe & Construction Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Utah

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 538 (1974)

Argued

Monday, November 12, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, January 16, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Utah, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Passenger Corp. v. Passengers Assn.

Mon, 12 Nov 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1289

Petitioner

Passenger Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Passengers Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 453 (1974)

Argued

Monday, November 12, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, January 9, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Passenger Corp., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 45 U.S.C. 547

None

Bellis v. United States

Mon, 25 Feb 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-190

Petitioner

Bellis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 85 (1974)

Argued

Monday, February 25, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, May 28, 1974

Advocates

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Robinson

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

Location

Robinson's car during a traffic stop

9th St NW & U St NW Washington DC 20001

Washington, DC 20001

United States

38° 55' 1.1568" N, 77° 1' 26.1912" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-936

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Robinson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 218 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, October 9, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, December 11, 1973

Facts of the Case

A police officer pulled over and arresting Robinson for operating an automobile without a valid permit. The officer then frisked Robinson and discovered a crumpled cigarette package containing fourteen vials of heroin in his pocket.

Question

Did the officer's search violate the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

The Court upheld the search. Distinguishing between searches done to discover concealed weapons and those conducted coextensive with an arrest, Justice Rehnquist argued since the officer did not conduct the search in an abusive or extreme manner, and because he acted consistent with the authority vested in a police officer when making an arrest, his actions were legitimate.

Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County

Tue, 06 Nov 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-847

Appellee

Maricopa County

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Memorial Hospital

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 250 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, November 6, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, February 26, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Gateway Coal Co. v. Mine Workers

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-782

Petitioner

Gateway Coal Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mine Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 368 (1974)

Argued

Monday, October 15, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, January 8, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Gateway Coal Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Super Tire Engineering Co. v. Mccorkle

Tue, 15 Jan 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1554

Petitioner

Super Tire Engineering Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mccorkle

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 115 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, January 15, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, April 16, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Super Tire Engineering Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet

Wed, 07 Nov 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1019

Petitioner

Sea-Land Services, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gaudet

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 573 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, November 7, 1973

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Kusper v. Pontikes

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1631

Appellee

Pontikes

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Kusper

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 51 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, October 9, 1973

Decided

Monday, November 19, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz

Wed, 16 Jan 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-985

Petitioner

Shultz

Respondent

California Bankers Assn.

Consolidation

Shultz, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. v. California Bankers Assn. et al., No. 72-1073

Stark et al. v. Shultz, Secretary of the Treasury, et al., No. 72-1196

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 21 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, January 16, 1974

Decided

Monday, April 1, 1974

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for Shultz et al., appellants in No. 72-1073 and appellees in Nos. 72-985 and 72-1196)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for California Bankers Assn., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

United States v. Calandra

Thu, 11 Oct 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-734

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Calandra

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 338 (1974)

Argued

Thursday, October 11, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, January 8, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Exclusionary Rule (admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment)

None

Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp.

Wed, 09 Jan 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-187

Petitioner

Kewanee Oil Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bicron Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 470 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, January 9, 1974

Decided

Monday, May 13, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Kewanee Oil Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 35 U.S.C. 101

None

Pell v. Procunier

Tue, 16 Apr 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-918

Appellee

Procunier

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Pell

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 73-754

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 817 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, April 16, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 24, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mobil Oil Corp. v. FPC

Wed, 17 Apr 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-437

Petitioner

Mobil Oil Corp.

Respondent

Federal Power Commission

Consolidation

No. 73-457

No. 73-464

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 283 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, April 17, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1974

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

Spomer v. Littleton

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-955

Petitioner

Spomer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Littleton

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 514 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, October 17, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, January 15, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Kosydar v. National Cash Register Co.

Tue, 19 Mar 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-629

Petitioner

Kosydar

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Cash Register Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 62 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, March 19, 1974

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Kosydar, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 2: Export-Import Clause

None

Lehman v. City Of Shaker Heights

Tue, 26 Feb 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Location

City of Shaker Heights Shaker Heights, OH

United States

41° 28' 27.2028" N, 81° 33' 1.3464" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-328

Petitioner

Harry Lehman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

City Of Shaker Heights

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 298 (1974)

Argued

February 26-27, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, June 25, 1974

Advocates

Leonard J. Schwartz (argued the cause for the petitioner)

Paul R. Donaldson (argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Harry Lehman was running for the Ohio House of Representatives in the 56th District, which included the city of Shaker Heights. Lehman wanted to have his campaign advertisements placed on the side of Shaker Heights' streetcars. Metromedia, Inc. was designated by the city to manage that advertising space. Metromedia's contract with the city prohibited it from placing political advertisements on the streetcars. It was allowed, however, to place advertisements from businesses and public service groups. Lehman's request was denied, and he sued in the Ohio Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County alleging that Shaker Heights' policy violated his free speech rights. The Ohio Court of Appeals ruled for the city. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the decision.

Question

Did Shaker Heights' policy against political advertising on its streetcars violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

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

No. In a 5-4 decision, the Court affirmed the Supreme Court of Ohio and found no violation of the First or Fourteenth Amendments. Writing for a plurality of four justices, Justice Harry A. Blackmun asserted that "no First Amendment forum is here to be found," as the streetcars did not qualify as a "public thoroughfare." Accordingly, the city "need not accept every proffer of advertising." The city could reject certain types of advertising as long as the policies were not "arbitrary, capricious, or invidious." Given the "reasonable legislative objectives" of minimizing "chances of abuse, the appearance of favoritism, and the risk of imposing upon a captive audience," Shaker Heights' policy was not unconstitutional.

Falk v. Brennan

Thu, 11 Oct 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-844

Petitioner

Falk

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brennan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 190 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, October 11, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, December 5, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Falk, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Gooding v. United States

Mon, 25 Feb 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-6902

Petitioner

Gooding

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 430 (1974)

Argued

Monday, February 25, 1974

Decided

Monday, April 29, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 21 U.S.C. 879

None

Shea v. Vialpando

Tue, 26 Feb 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1513

Petitioner

Shea

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Vialpando

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 251 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, February 26, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, April 23, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Edwards

Tue, 15 Jan 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-88

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Edwards

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 800 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, January 15, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, March 26, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Steffel v. Thompson

Tue, 13 Nov 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-5581

Petitioner

Steffel

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thompson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 452 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, November 13, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, March 19, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Huddleston v. United States

Wed, 07 Nov 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1076

Petitioner

Huddleston

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 814 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, November 7, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, March 26, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 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

Kahn v. Shevin

Mon, 25 Feb 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-78

Appellant

Shevin

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Kahn

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 351 (1974)

Argued

February 25-26, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, April 24, 1974

Advocates

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (argued the cause for the appellant)

Sydney H. McKenzie III (argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Matlock

Mon, 10 Dec 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1355

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Matlock

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 164 (1974)

Argued

December 10-11, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1974

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: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Cass v. United States

Tue, 16 Apr 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-604

Petitioner

Cass

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 73-5661

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 72 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, April 16, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, May 28, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 10 U.S.C. 687

None

O'shea v. Littleton

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-953

Petitioner

O'shea

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Littleton

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 488 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, October 17, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, January 15, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

FPC v. New England Power Co.

Mon, 03 Dec 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1162

Petitioner

Federal Power Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New England Power Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 345 (1974)

Argued

Monday, December 3, 1973

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for New England Power Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 31 U.S.C. 483

None

Blackledge v. Perry

Tue, 19 Feb 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1660

Petitioner

Blackledge

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Perry

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 21 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, February 19, 1974

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lewis v. City Of New Orleans

Mon, 10 Dec 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-6156

Appellee

City Of New Orleans

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lewis

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 130 (1974)

Argued

Monday, December 10, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

American Party Of Texas v. White

Mon, 05 Nov 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-887

Appellee

White

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

American Party Of Texas

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 72-942

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 767 (1974)

Argued

Monday, November 5, 1973

Decided

Monday, March 25, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for American Party Of Texas, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Hess v. Indiana

Thu, 17 May 2012 16:16:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-5290

Appellee

Indiana

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hess

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 105 (1973)

Decided

Monday, November 19, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Fuller v. Oregon

Tue, 26 Mar 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-5280

Petitioner

Fuller

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oregon

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 40 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, March 26, 1974

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Richardson

Wed, 10 Oct 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Central Intelligence Agency Headquarters

CIA Headquarters McLean VA 22101

McLean, VA 22101

United States

38° 57' 10.3968" N, 77° 9' 8.9316" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-885

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Richardson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 166 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, October 10, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, June 25, 1974

Advocates

Robert H. Bork (Argued the cause for the United States et al.)

Osmond K. Fraenkel (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Richardson, a taxpayer interested in activities of the Central Intelligence Agency, sued the government to provide records detailing the CIA's expenditures.

Question

Does a federal taxpayer have standing to force the government to disclose expenditures of the CIA?

Conclusion

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

The Court held that Richardson did not have standing to sue. Using the two- pronged standing test of Flast v. Cohen (1968), Chief Justice Burger found that there was no "logical nexus between the status asserted [by Richardson as a taxpayer] and the claim sought to be adjudicated." It was clear to Burger that Richardson was not "a proper and appropriate party to invoke federal judicial power" on this issue.

Allee v. Medrano

Tue, 13 Nov 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1125

Appellee

Medrano

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Allee

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 802 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, November 13, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bonelli Cattle Co. v. Arizona

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-397

Petitioner

Bonelli Cattle Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arizona

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 313 (1973)

Argued

Monday, October 15, 1973

Decided

Monday, December 17, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Bonelli Cattle Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Milliken v. Bradley

Wed, 27 Feb 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Detroit Public Schools Detroit, MI

United States

42° 19' 48.594" N, 83° 2' 45.2868" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-434

Petitioner

Milliken

Respondent

Bradley

Consolidation

No. 73-435

No. 73-436

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 717 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, February 27, 1974

Decided

Thursday, July 25, 1974

Advocates

Robert H. Bork (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Frank J. Kelley (Argued the cause for the petitioners in No. 73-434)

William M. Saxton (Argued the cause for the petitioners in Nos. 73-435 and 73-436)

Nathaniel R. Jones (Argued the cause for the respondents in all cases)

J. Harold Flannery (Argued the cause for the respondents in all cases)

Facts of the Case

A suit charging that the Detroit, Michigan public school system was racially segregated as a result of official policies was filed against Governor Milliken. After reviewing the case and concluding the system was segregated, a district court ordered the adoption of a desegregation plan that encompassed eighty-five outlying school districts. The lower court found that Detroit-only plans were inadequate. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the metropolitan plan. This case was decided together with Allen Park Public Schools v. Bradley and Grosse Point Public School System v. Bradley.

Question

Did federal courts have the authority to impose a multi-district desegregation plan on schools outside the Detroit area?

Conclusion

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

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that "[w]ith no showing of significant violation by the 53 outlying school districts and no evidence of any interdistrict violation or effect," the district court's remedy was "wholly impermissible" and not justified by Brown v. Board of Education. The Court noted that desegregation, "in the sense of dismantling a dual school system," did not require "any particular racial balance in each 'school, grade or classroom.'" The Court also emphasized the importance of local control over the operation of schools.

Donnelly v. Dechristoforo

Wed, 20 Feb 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1570

Petitioner

Donnelly

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dechristoforo

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 637 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, February 20, 1974

Decided

Monday, May 13, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Hernandez v. Veterans' Administration

Tue, 11 Dec 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-700

Petitioner

Hernandez

Respondent

Veterans' Administration

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 391 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, December 11, 1973

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1974

Advocates

Jack R. Petranker (pro hac vice, argued the cause for the petitioners)

Lawrence L. Curtice (argued the cause for the petitioners)

Gerald P. Norton (argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hernandez, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 211

None

Baker v. Gold Seal Liquors

Tue, 23 Apr 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-804

Petitioner

Baker

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gold Seal Liquors

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 467 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, April 23, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Baker, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Smith v. Goguen

Mon, 12 Nov 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1254

Petitioner

Goguen

Respondent

Smith

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 566 (1974)

Argued

November 12-13, 1973

Decided

Monday, March 25, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Jenkins v. Georgia

Mon, 15 Apr 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-557

Appellee

Georgia

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Jenkins

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 153 (1974)

Argued

Monday, April 15, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 24, 1974

Advocates

Louis Nizer (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Tony H. Hight (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

An Albany, Georgia theater manager was convicted under a Georgia obscenity law when he showed the critically acclaimed film "Carnal Knowledge." The film explored social conceptions of sexuality and starred Jack Nicholson and Ann Margaret.

Question

Did the manager's conviction violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Jenkins, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

A unanimous Court held that the Georgia Supreme Court misapplied the obscenity test announced in Miller v. California (1973). Justice Rehnquist argued that Miller did not give juries "unbridled discretion" to determine what is patently offensive. Only material that displays "hard core sexual conduct" is prohibited. Since "Carnal Knowledge" did not contain scenes of that nature it merited constitutional protection.

Howard Johnson Co. v. Hotel Employees

Tue, 19 Mar 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-631

Petitioner

Howard Johnson Co.

Respondent

Hotel Employees

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 249 (1974)

Argued

March 19-20, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Howard Johnson Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Saxbe v. Washington Post Co.

Wed, 17 Apr 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1265

Petitioner

Saxbe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Washington Post Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 843 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, April 17, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 24, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

F. D. Rich Co., v. Industrial Lumber Co.

Wed, 09 Jan 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1382

Petitioner

F. D. Rich Co.,

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Industrial Lumber Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 116 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, January 9, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, May 28, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for F. D. Rich Co.,, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miller

None

DeFunis v. Odegaard

Tue, 26 Feb 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Location

University of Washington Law School

4293 Memorial Way Seattle WA 98195

Seattle, WA 98195

United States

47° 39' 35.028" N, 122° 18' 35.0352" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-235

Petitioner

DeFunis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Odegaard

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 312 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, February 26, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, April 23, 1974

Facts of the Case

DeFunis was denied admission to the University of Washington Law School despite test scores that were higher than some of the minorities admitted. DeFunis then successfully asked a trial court to require the school to admit him. On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court reversed, upholding the school's decision to deny DeFunis admission. The U.S. Supreme Court considered the case as DeFunis was entering his final year of school.

Question

Was the case in question moot and therefore outside the scope of judicial review?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for DeFunis, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

In a 5-4 per curiam opinion, the Court held that because the University of Washington Law School had agreed to allow DeFunis to enroll and to earn a diploma, the case in question was moot. DeFunis would be able to complete his legal studies irrespective of any Supreme Court decision. The controversy between parties had thus "clearly ceased to be 'definite and concrete' and no longer 'touch[ed] the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.'"

Paschall v. Christie-Stewart, Inc.

Tue, 16 Oct 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-922

Appellee

Christie-Stewart, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Paschall

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 100 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, October 16, 1973

Decided

Monday, November 19, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Geduldig v. Aiello

Tue, 26 Mar 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Location

California Employment Development Department

1516 9th St Sacramento CA 95814

Sacramento, CA 95814

United States

38° 34' 29.8416" N, 121° 29' 50.3052" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-640

Appellee

Geduldig, Director, Department of Human Resources Development

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Carolyn Aiello et al.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 484 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, March 26, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1974

Advocates

Joanne Condas (Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for appellant)

Wendy W. Williams (argued the cause for appellees)

Facts of the Case

Carolyn Aiello experienced disability as a result of complications during her pregnancy. She was ineligible for benefits from California's Disability Fund under Section 2626 of California's Unemployment Insurance Code. Section 2626 denied benefits to women whose disabilities resulted from pregnancy. Aiello and other disabled women who were denied benefits under Section 2626 challenged the statute as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held the statute unconstitutional. The state appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question

Did Section 2626 of California's Unemployment Insurance Code violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

No. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed the District Court and upheld the statute. In an opinion authored by Justice Potter Stewart, the Court accepted California's interest in keeping the Disability Fund program solvent and maintaining the low contribution rate from program members. Insuring disability resulting from pregnancy complications would be "extraordinarily expensive" and make the program "impossible to maintain." As in Dandridge v. Williams, California was not obligated by the Equal Protection Clause to "choose between attacking every aspect of a problem or not attacking the problem at all." Therefore, California could constitutionally choose which disabilities to insure through the Disability Fund in order to maintain the solvency and contribution level of the program.

Spence v. Washington

Wed, 09 Jan 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1690

Appellee

Washington

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Spence

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 405 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, January 9, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, June 25, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None