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

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:31:35 +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

United States v. General Dynamics Corp.

Wed, 05 Dec 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-402

Appellee

General Dynamics Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 486 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, December 5, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, March 19, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for General Dynamics Corp., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Storer v. Brown

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-812

Appellee

Brown

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Storer

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 72-6050

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 724 (1974)

Argued

Monday, November 5, 1973

Decided

Monday, March 25, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Davis v. United States

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

Location

US Circuit Court for the Ninth Circuit

95 7th St San Francisco CA 94103

San Francisco, CA 94103

United States

37° 46' 45.3648" N, 122° 24' 39.69" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1454

Petitioner

Joseph Anthony Davis

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. 333 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, February 26, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1974

Advocates

Marvin M. Karpatkin (argued the cause for the petitioner)

Edmund W. Kitch (argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

Joseph Anthony Davis was classified as I-A by a draft board and ordered to report for a physical examination. He failed to report several times. The draft board declared him a delinquent, and issued an order that he be inducted into the Armed Forces. Under 32 CFR Section 1631.7, a draftee could only be ordered to report for induction if he was deemed "acceptable for service" after a physical examination and if the board had mailed him a statement of his status with three weeks' notice. The statute provided an exception for draftees that were declared delinquent, accelerating the process. Davis was convicted in United States District Court for the Central District of California for his failures to report, and he appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While his case was pending, the Supreme Court decided Gutknecht v. United States. Gutknecht involved a similar situation, in which a draftee's induction was accelerated by his delinquent status. The Supreme Court declared Gutknecht's conviction invalid. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court, which held that Davis' case was not impacted by Gutknecht. This ruling was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. Davis petitioned for certiorari. During this process, the Ninth Circuit ruled in United States v. Fox. Fox involved a situation similar to Davis'. Fox's conviction was reversed by the Ninth Circuit. Meanwhile, Davis' petition for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court, and he began serving his prison sentence. Davis then challenged his conviction under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255. Davis asserted that in the process of his conviction, the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Fox changed the law. The District Court ruled against him. The Ninth Circuit affirmed on the ground that it had already ruled against him on the same issue. Davis then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question

Was Davis entitled to challenge his conviction under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Davis, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

Yes. In a 7-2 decision, the Court held that Davis could challenge his conviction under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255. Writing for the majority, Justice Potter Stewart quoted the government's acknowledgment that the Ninth Circuit's opinion was "not consonant with this Court's holding in Sanders v. United States." The Court rejected the government's suggestion that Section 2255 did not apply because Davis' challenge was not grounded in the Constitution. Since "new law has been made...since the trial and appeal" through the Ninth Circuit's later holding in Fox, Davis was entitled to a challenge under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. concurred in part and dissented in part.

Central Tablet Mfg. Co. v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-593

Petitioner

Central Tablet Mfg. Co.

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 673 (1974)

Argued

March 25-26, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, June 19, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Morton v. Mancari

Wed, 24 Apr 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Bureau of Indian Affairs

1849 C St NW Washington DC 20240

Washington, DC 20240

United States

38° 53' 36.6612" N, 77° 2' 39.7428" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-362

Appellee

Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Interior et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

C. R. Mancari et al.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 73-364, Amerind v. Mancari et al.

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 535 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, April 24, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1974

Advocates

Harry R. Sachse (argued the cause for appellants in No. 73-362)

Harris D. Sherman (argued the cause for appellant in No. 73-364)

Gene E. Franchini (argued the cause for the appellees in both cases)

Facts of the Case

Congress passed the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934. The Act included a provision in 25 U.S.C. Section 472 that gave hiring preference Native Americans for positions in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Congress then passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, which prohibited racial discrimination in federal employment. In June 1972, the BIA extended Indian preference to both hiring and promotion decisions. C.R. Mancari was a non- Indian employee of the BIA. He and other non-Indian employees of the BIA filed a class action in United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. They claimed that Section 472 was repealed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. They also claimed that Section 472 violated the Fifth Amendment and their right to property without due process. The District Court ruled in their favor. The United States appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question

(1) Did the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 repeal Section 472 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934?

(2) Did Section 472 violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

No and no. The Court reversed the District Court. The 1972 Act did not explicitly repeal Section 472. Justice Harry A. Blackmun, writing for a unanimous Court, cited the long history of Indian employment preference as exceptions to prohibitions against employment discrimination. Congress had also passed two Indian preference statutes after the 1972 Act, showing that Congress did not intend implicitly to repeal Section 472. In addition, the Court held that Section 472 did not constitute discrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Again, Justice Blackmun cited the history of "special treatment" granted to Indians. The preference for Indians in Section 472 was not "a 'racial' preference", but rather "an employment criterion reasonably designed to further the cause of Indian self-government." Section 472 went towards the "fulfillment of Congress' unique obligation towards the Indians," and was therefore not in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

United States v. Giordano

Tue, 08 Jan 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1057

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Giordano

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 505 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, January 8, 1974

Decided

Monday, May 13, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Giordano, 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

None

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Ware

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-312

Petitioner

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith

Respondent

Ware

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 117 (1973)

Argued

October 9-10, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, December 4, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Ware, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Mayor v. Educational Equality League

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1264

Petitioner

Mayor

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Educational Equality League

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 605 (1974)

Argued

Monday, December 10, 1973

Decided

Monday, March 25, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Corning Glass Works v. Brennan

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-29

Petitioner

Corning Glass Works

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brennan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 73-695

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 188 (1974)

Argued

Monday, March 25, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Brennan, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 29 U.S.C. 206

None

Hamling v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-507

Petitioner

Hamling

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 87 (1974)

Argued

Monday, April 15, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 24, 1974

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

Marshall v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-5881

Petitioner

Marshall

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 417 (1974)

Argued

October 16-17, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, January 9, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Wingo v. Wedding

Mon, 22 Apr 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-846

Petitioner

Wingo

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wedding

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 461 (1974)

Argued

Monday, April 22, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, June 26, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Wedding, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 631

None

Dorszynski v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-5284

Petitioner

Dorszynski

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 424 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, March 20, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, June 26, 1974

Advocates

Robert H. Friebert (by appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Gerald P. Norton (argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Dorszynski, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 5005

None

Arnett v. Kennedy

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1118

Appellee

Wayne Kennedy

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Arnett

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 134 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, November 7, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, April 16, 1974

Facts of the Case

Wayne Kennedy was a nonprobationary employee of the federal Office of Economic Opportunity. He was dismissed from his position after allegedly making recklessly false and defamatory statements about other OEO employees. Though he had the right under federal regulations to reply to the charges, he chose instead to sue the agency for interfering with his freedom of expression and denying him due process. A three-judge District Court agreed with Kennedy on the due process claim.

Question

May the federal government dismiss a nonprobationary employee without a trial- type preremoval hearing? Must the federal government provide sufficiently precise guidelines as to what kind of speech might be made the basis for a removal action?

Conclusion

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

In a plurality opinion written by Justice William H. Rehnquist, the court held that the procedures established for the purpose of determining whether there is "cause" for Kennedy's dismissal satisfied the requirements of procedural due process. The court also held that standard of employment protection imposed by was not impermissibly vague or overbroad in its regulation of the speech of federal employees. The statute in question was not unconstitutional on its face.

NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co.

Mon, 14 Jan 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1598

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bell Aerospace Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 267 (1974)

Argued

Monday, January 14, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, April 23, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for NLRB, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Lefkowitz v. Turley

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-331

Appellee

Turley

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lefkowitz

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 70 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, October 10, 1973

Decided

Monday, November 19, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Turley, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-203

Petitioner

Eisen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Carlisle & Jacquelin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 156 (1974)

Argued

Monday, February 25, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, May 28, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Carlisle & Jacquelin, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Curtis v. Loether

Tue, 04 Dec 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1035

Petitioner

Curtis

Respondent

Loether

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 189 (1974)

Argued

December 4-5, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Loether, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Housing

None

Kokoszka v. Belford

Mon, 22 Apr 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-5265

Petitioner

Kokoszka

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Belford

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 642 (1974)

Argued

Monday, April 22, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, June 19, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Belford, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

William E. Arnold Co. v. Carpenters

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-466

Petitioner

William E. Arnold Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Carpenters

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 12 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, March 20, 1974

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for William E. Arnold Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc.

Wed, 14 Nov 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Robert Welch Inc. Belmont, MA

United States

42° 23' 45.348" N, 71° 10' 43.194" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-617

Petitioner

Gertz

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Robert Welch Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 323 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, November 14, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, June 25, 1974

Advocates

Wayne B. Giampietro (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Clyde J. Watts (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Gertz was an attorney hired by a family to sue a police officer who had killed the family's son. In a magazine called American Opinion, the John Birch Society accused Gertz of being a "Leninist" and a "Communist-fronter" because he chose to represent clients who were suing a law enforcement officer. Gertz lost his libel suit because a lower court found that the magazine had not violated the actual malice test for libel which the Supreme Court had established in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).

Question

Does the First Amendment allow a newspaper or broadcaster to assert defamatory falsehoods about an individual who is neither a public official nor a public figure?

Conclusion

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

The Court reversed the lower court decision and held that Gertz's rights had been violated. Justice Powell argued that the application of the New York Times v. Sullivan standard in this case was inappropriate because Gertz was neither a public official nor a public figure. In the context of the opinion, Powell advanced many lines of reasoning to establish that ordinary citizens should be allowed more protection from libelous statements than individuals in the public eye. However, continued Powell, the actual malice standard did not lose all significance in cases involving ordinary citizens as he advised states to use it in assessing claims for punitive damages by citizens suing for libel.

Taylor v. Hayes

Mon, 18 Mar 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-473

Petitioner

Taylor

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hayes

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 488 (1974)

Argued

Monday, March 18, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, June 26, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Taylor, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Windward Shipping v. American Radio Assn.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1061

Petitioner

Windward Shipping

Respondent

American Radio Assn.

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 104 (1974)

Argued

December 3-4, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, February 19, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Windward Shipping, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Mississippi v. Arkansas

Wed, 05 Dec 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

48 ORIG

Plaintiff

Mississippi

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Arkansas

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 289 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, December 5, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, February 26, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-5847

Petitioner

Alexander

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gardner-Denver Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 36 (1974)

Argued

Monday, November 5, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, February 19, 1974

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Alexander, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Gilmore v. City Of Montgomery

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1517

Petitioner

Gilmore

Respondent

City Of Montgomery

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 556 (1974)

Argued

January 15-16, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co.

Tue, 04 Dec 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-6160

Petitioner

Mitchell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

W. T. Grant Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 600 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, December 4, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 13, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for W. T. Grant Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

United States v. Maze

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1168

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Maze

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 395 (1974)

Argued

November 13-14, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, January 8, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Maze, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1341

None

Commissioner v. Nat. Alfalfa Dehydrating

Mon, 14 Jan 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-9

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nat. Alfalfa Dehydrating

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 134 (1974)

Argued

Monday, January 14, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, May 28, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Commissioner, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

North Dakota Pharmacy Bd. v. Snyder's Stores

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1176

Petitioner

North Dakota Pharmacy Bd.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Snyder's Stores

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 156 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, November 6, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, December 5, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for North Dakota Pharmacy Bd., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Norwell v. City Of Cincinnati

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:31:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1366

Petitioner

Norwell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

City Of Cincinnati

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 14 (1973)

Decided

Monday, November 5, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

FPC v. Texaco Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1490

Petitioner

Federal Power Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Texaco Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 72-1491

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 380 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, February 19, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for FPC, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Natural Gas, or Natural Gas Policy Acts

None

Johnson v. Robison

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1297

Petitioner

Robison

Respondent

Johnson

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 361 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, December 11, 1973

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1974

Advocates

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

Michael David Rosenberg (argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Johnson, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 211

None

Procunier v. Martinez

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1465

Appellee

Martinez

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Procunier

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 396 (1974)

Argued

Monday, December 3, 1973

Decided

Monday, April 29, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Marine Bancorporation

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-38

Appellee

Marine Bancorporation

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 602 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, April 23, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, June 26, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Marine Bancorporation, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Cardwell v. Lewis

Mon, 18 Mar 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1603

Petitioner

Cardwell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lewis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 583 (1974)

Argued

Monday, March 18, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Dillard v. Industrial Comm'n

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-5412

Appellee

Industrial Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Dillard

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 783 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, March 26, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, May 15, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Air Pollution Variance Bd. v. Western Alfalfa

Thu, 25 Apr 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-690

Petitioner

Air Pollution Variance Bd.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Western Alfalfa

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 861 (1974)

Argued

Thursday, April 25, 1974

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Air Pollution Variance Bd., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-702

Petitioner

Golden State Bottling 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

414 U.S. 168 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, October 11, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, December 5, 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

Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co.

Mon, 29 Apr 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-781

Petitioner

Scherk

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alberto-Culver Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 506 (1974)

Argued

Monday, April 29, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Scherk, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 9 U.S.C. 1

None

Scheuer v. Rhodes

Tue, 04 Dec 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-914

Petitioner

Scheuer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rhodes

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 72-1318

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 232 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, December 4, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, April 17, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Scheuer, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment

None

Holder v. Banks

Wed, 24 Apr 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-841

Petitioner

Holder

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Banks

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 187 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, April 24, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, May 28, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Banks, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Letter Carriers v. Austin

Wed, 14 Nov 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1180

Appellee

Austin

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Letter Carriers

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 264 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, November 14, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, June 25, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

National Cable Television Assn. v. U.S.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-948

Petitioner

National Cable Television Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 336 (1974)

Argued

Monday, December 3, 1973

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for National Cable Television Assn., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 31 U.S.C. 483

None

Oneida Indian Nation v. County Of Oneida

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-851

Petitioner

Oneida Indian Nation

Respondent

County Of Oneida

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 661 (1974)

Argued

November 6-7, 1973

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Oneida Indian Nation, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1331

None

Pernell v. Southall Realty

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-6041

Petitioner

Pernell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Southall Realty

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 363 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, February 19, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, April 24, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Pernell, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 7: Seventh Amendment

None

Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-671

Petitioner

Espinoza

Respondent

Farah Mfg. Co.

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 86 (1973)

Argued

October 10-11, 1973

Decided

Monday, November 19, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Farah Mfg. Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.

Mon, 07 Jan 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-157

Appellee

Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Calero-Toledo

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 663 (1974)

Argued

Monday, January 7, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, May 15, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Jimenez v. Weinberger

Mon, 18 Mar 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-6609

Appellee

Weinberger

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Jimenez

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 628 (1974)

Argued

Monday, March 18, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, June 19, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-263

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Idaho Power Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 1 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, February 27, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 24, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Commissioner, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Ross v. Moffitt

Mon, 22 Apr 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-786

Petitioner

Ross

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Moffitt

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 600 (1974)

Argued

Monday, April 22, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mississippi v. Arkansas

Wed, 05 Dec 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

48 ORIG

Plaintiff

Mississippi

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Arkansas

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 302 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, December 5, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, February 26, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Richardson v. Ramirez

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1589

Petitioner

Richardson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ramirez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 24 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, January 15, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 24, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Richardson, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reduction in Representation Clause

None

Florida Power & Light v. Electrical Workers

Wed, 24 Apr 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-556

Petitioner

Florida Power & Light

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Electrical Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 73-795

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 790 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, April 24, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 24, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Electrical Workers, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-582

Petitioner

Pittsburgh

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alco Parking Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 369 (1974)

Argued

Monday, April 15, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Pittsburgh, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

Cooper Stevedoring Co. v. Kopke, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-726

Petitioner

Cooper Stevedoring Co.

Respondent

Kopke, Inc.

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 106 (1974)

Argued

April 15-16, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, May 28, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Kopke, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Gustafson v. Florida

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1669

Petitioner

Gustafson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 260 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, October 9, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, December 11, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Beasley v. Food Fair Of North Carolina

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1597

Petitioner

Beasley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Food Fair Of North Carolina

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 653 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, February 19, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, May 15, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Food Fair Of North Carolina, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

United States v. Kahn

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1328

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Kahn

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 143 (1974)

Argued

December 11-12, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 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

Communist Party Of Indiana v. Whitcomb

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1040

Appellee

Whitcomb

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Communist Party Of Indiana

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 441 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, October 16, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, January 9, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Warden v. Marrero

Mon, 29 Apr 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-831

Petitioner

Warden

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Marrero

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 653 (1974)

Argued

Monday, April 29, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, June 19, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Warden, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 26 U.S.C. 7237

None

Sampson v. Murray

Wed, 14 Nov 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-403

Petitioner

Sampson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Murray

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 61 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, November 14, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, February 19, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Wheeler v. Barrera

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-62

Petitioner

Wheeler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Barrera

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 402 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, January 16, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Barrera, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Elementary and Secondary Education

None

Wolff v. Mcdonnell

Mon, 22 Apr 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-679

Petitioner

Wolff

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mcdonnell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 539 (1974)

Argued

Monday, April 22, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, June 26, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Cupp v. Naughten

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1148

Petitioner

Cupp

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Naughten

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 141 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, October 16, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, December 4, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

NLRB v. Food Store Employees

Mon, 18 Mar 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-370

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent

Food Store Employees

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 1 (1974)

Argued

March 18-19, 1974

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Edelman v. Jordan

Wed, 12 Dec 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1410

Petitioner

Edelman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jordan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 651 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, December 12, 1973

Decided

Monday, March 25, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Edelman, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment

None

Secretary Of The Navy v. Avrech

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1713

Appellee

Avrech

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Secretary Of The Navy

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 676 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, February 20, 1974

Decided

Monday, July 8, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Secretary Of The Navy, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Washington Game Dept. v. Puyallup Tribe

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-481

Petitioner

Washington Game Dept.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Puyallup Tribe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 72-746

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 44 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, October 10, 1973

Decided

Monday, November 19, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Washington Game Dept., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 10 Stat. 1132

None

Lehman Brothers v. Schein

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-439

Petitioner

Lehman Brothers

Respondent

Schein

Consolidation

No. 73-440

No. 73-495

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 386 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, March 19, 1974

Decided

Monday, April 29, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Hagans v. Lavine

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-6476

Petitioner

Hagans

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lavine

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 528 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, December 11, 1973

Decided

Monday, March 25, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Hagans, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1343

None

Cleveland Board Of Education v. LaFleur

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

Location

Cleveland Board of Education

1380 East Sixth Street

Cleveland, OH 44114

United States

41° 30' 8.2224" N, 81° 41' 30.5304" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-777

Petitioner

Cleveland Board of Education

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jo Carol LaFleur

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 72-1129, Cohen v. Chesterfield County School Board

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 632 (1974)

Argued

Monday, October 15, 1973

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1974

Facts of the Case

Carol Jo LaFleur was a teacher at Patrick Henry Junior High School in Cleveland, Ohio. She was forced to discontinue her duties on March 12, 1971 because the Cleveland School Board required every teacher to take maternity leave without pay five months before the expected date of birth. The board also ruled that a teacher could not return from maternity leave until 1) the next school semester began, 2) the teacher obtained a certificate from her physician showing good medical health, and 3) the newborn child was three months old.

Ann Elizabeth Nelson was a French teacher at Central Junior High School, also in Cleveland. She reported her pregnancy to the school’s principal on January 29, 1971, and applied for maternity leave. Both LaFleur and Nelson wanted to continue teaching until the end of the school year, but were forced to leave in March 1971. LaFleur and Nelson filed separate suits in district court challenging the constitutionality of the school boards’ maternity leave rules; the court tried their cases together, and held that the board’s policies were constitutional. A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, reversed, concluding that the mandatory leave policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.

Susan Cohen was a social studies teacher at Midlothian High School in Chesterfield County, Virginia. Cohen notified the Chesterfield School Board that she was pregnant on November 2, 1970. The board’s rule required pregnant teachers to go on maternity leave at the end of their fifth month, but allowed re-employment the next school year upon submission of a medical certificate from the teacher’s physician. Cohen’s obstetrician believed that she was fit to continue working, but the school board denied Cohen’s request for an extension. Cohen challenged the constitutionality of Chesterfield County’s rule in district court, which held that the regulation violated the equal protection clause. The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, affirmed, but on rehearing en banc, the court upheld the constitutionality of the regulation.

Question

1. Did both school boards’ policies terminating teachers’ employment in their fourth or fifth month of pregnancy violate the Fourteenth Amendment?

2. Did the Cleveland School Board’s policy preventing LaFleur and Nelson from returning to work until their children were three months old violate the Fourteenth Amendment?

3. Did the Chesterfield School Board’s policy allowing Cohen to resume employment after maternity leave only upon submission of a certificate of medical health by her physician violate the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

Yes, yes and no. Writing for a 7-2 majority, Justice Potter Stewart held that the school boards’ regulations requiring pregnant teachers to stop working after the fifth month of their pregnancies violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. Justice Stewart emphasized that the Court extends strong protection to individuals’ freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life. He pointed to both boards’ requirements that pregnant teachers provide advance notice of their condition, arguing that this was in itself sufficient to preserve continuity in classroom instruction.

Justice Stewart then turned to the school boards’ claim that the rules were required because some pregnant teachers became physically incapable of teaching. He reasoned that these rules amounted to an irrebuttable presumption that every teacher in her fourth or fifth month of pregnancy was incapable of teaching. He also rejected the boards’ argument that the rules were necessary for administrative convenience, concluding that administrative efficiency was not a sufficiently important interest to validate what was otherwise a violation of due process.

Justice Stewart also held that the Cleveland School Board’s eligibility restriction based on the age of the newborn child violated the due process clause because the board failed to show a reasonable justification for this regulation. In contrast, the Chesterfield School Board only required that teachers demonstrate good health, guaranteeing them re-employment by the beginning of the next school year. This was a reasonable and narrow method of protecting the school’s interest in teacher fitness.

Justice Louis Powell concurred in the result. He questioned the majority’s conclusion that some of the maternity leave requirements amounted to an irrebuttable presumption of unfitness. Instead, Justice Powell argued that the board’s classifications violated the female teachers’ right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment because they were not rationally related to the school’s legitimate interest in fostering continuity of teaching.

Justice William Rehnquist, joined by Chief Justice Warren Burger, dissented. He argued that while the school boards’ rules may have been arbitrary in particular cases, this was not enough to show that the rules themselves were unconstitutional. He noted that both parties conceded that the probability of physical impairment increased as a pregnancy advanced, and suggested that the line drawn by the boards was not irrational.

NLRB v. Savair Mfg. Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1231

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Savair Mfg. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 270 (1973)

Argued

Monday, November 12, 1973

Decided

Monday, December 17, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Zahn v. International Paper Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-888

Petitioner

Zahn

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

International Paper Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 291 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, October 16, 1973

Decided

Monday, December 17, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for International Paper Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

United States v. Chavez

Tue, 08 Jan 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1319

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chavez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 562 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, January 8, 1974

Decided

Monday, May 13, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 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

None

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo

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

Location

The Miami Herald

One Herald Plaza Miami FL 33132

Miami, FL 33132

United States

25° 47' 18.5964" N, 80° 11' 9.3804" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-797

Appellee

Miami Herald Publishing Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Pat Tornillo

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 241 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, April 17, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, June 25, 1974

Advocates

Daniel P. S. Paul (argued the cause for the appellant)

Jerome A. Barron (argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Pat Tornillo was Executive Director of the Classroom Teachers Association and a candidate for the Florida House of Representatives in Dade County, Florida. The Miami Herald published two editorials criticizing Tornillo and his candidacy. He demanded that the Herald publish his responses to the editorials. When the Herald refused, Tornillo sued in Dade County Circuit Court under Florida Statute Section 104.38, which granted political candidates criticized by any newspaper the right to have their responses to the criticisms published. The Herald challenged the statute as a violation of the free press clause of the First Amendment. The Circuit Court ruled that the statute was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Florida reversed this decision.

Question

Did Florida Statute Section 104.38, the "right to reply" statute, violate the free press clause of the First Amendment applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Miami Herald Publishing Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court reversed the Supreme Court of Florida and held that Florida's "right to reply" statute violated the freedom of press found in the First Amendment. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Court recognized the risks posed to the "true marketplace of ideas" by media consolidation and barriers to entry in the newspaper industry. However, even in that context, "press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and…cannot be legislated." The statute was an "intrusion into the function of editors," and imposed "a penalty on the basis of the content." Chief Justice Burger relied on New York Times v. Sullivan in that the "right to reply" statute "limits the variety of public debate," and was therefore unconstitutional. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. authored a concurring statement. Justice Byron R. White authored a concurring opinion.

Morton v. Ruiz

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1052

Petitioner

Morton

Respondent

Ruiz

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 199 (1974)

Argued

November 5-6, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Ruiz, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 25 U.S.C. 13

None

Speight v. Slaton

Mon, 07 Jan 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1557

Petitioner

Slaton

Respondent

Speight

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 333 (1974)

Argued

January 7-8, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, February 27, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters

Tue, 08 Jan 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1566

Petitioner

Granny Goose Foods, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Teamsters

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 423 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, January 8, 1974

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Teamsters, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1450

None

Gerstein v. Pugh

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-477

Petitioner

Gerstein

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pugh

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 103 (1975)

Argued

Monday, March 25, 1974

Reargued:

Monday, October 21, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, February 18, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lubin v. Panish

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6852

Petitioner

Lubin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Panish

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 709 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, October 9, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, March 26, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Village Of Belle Terre v. Boraas

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-191

Petitioner

Boraas

Respondent

Village Of Belle Terre

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 1 (1974)

Argued

February 19-20, 1974

Decided

Monday, April 1, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Village Of Belle Terre, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-822

Petitioner

Renegotiation Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bannercraft Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 1 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, October 17, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, February 19, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Renegotiation Board, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Anderson v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-346

Petitioner

Anderson

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. 211 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, March 19, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1974

Advocates

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 241

None

Foley v. Blair & Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1154

Petitioner

Foley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Blair & Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 212 (1973)

Argued

Monday, November 12, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, December 5, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Foley, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Teleprompter Corp. v. Cbs

Mon, 07 Jan 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1628

Petitioner

Teleprompter Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cbs

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 72-1633

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 394 (1974)

Argued

Monday, January 7, 1974

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Teleprompter Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 17 U.S.C. 1

None

Bradley v. Richmond School Board

Wed, 05 Dec 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1322

Petitioner

Bradley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Richmond School Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 696 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, December 5, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, May 15, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Bradley, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Education Amendments of 1972

None

Parker v. Levy

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-206

Appellee

Levy

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Parker

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 733 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, February 20, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, June 19, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

NLRB v. Magnavox Co.

Mon, 14 Jan 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1637

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent

Magnavox Co.

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 322 (1974)

Argued

January 14-15, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, February 27, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for NLRB, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Schlesinger v. Reservists To Stop The War

Mon, 14 Jan 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1188

Petitioner

Schlesinger

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reservists To Stop The War

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 208 (1974)

Argued

Monday, January 14, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, June 25, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Connecticut National Bank

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-767

Appellee

Connecticut National Bank

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 656 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, April 23, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, June 26, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Patterson v. Warner

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-5839

Appellee

Warner

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Patterson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 303 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, January 9, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, February 26, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bob Jones University v. Simon

Mon, 07 Jan 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1470

Petitioner

Bob Jones University

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Simon

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 725 (1974)

Argued

Monday, January 7, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, May 15, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bangor Punta Operations v. Bangor & A. R. Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-718

Petitioner

Bangor Punta Operations

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bangor & A. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 703 (1974)

Argued

Monday, April 15, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, June 19, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Bangor Punta Operations, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

O'brien v. Skinner

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1058

Appellee

Skinner

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

O'brien

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 524 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, November 6, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, January 16, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lau v. Nichols

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-6520

Petitioner

Lau

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nichols

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 563 (1974)

Argued

Monday, December 10, 1973

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Lau, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI

None

Michigan v. Tucker

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-482

Petitioner

Michigan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tucker

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 433 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, March 20, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Michigan, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miranda Warnings

None

Snow v. Commissioner

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-641

Petitioner

Snow

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Commissioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 500 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, April 16, 1974

Decided

Monday, May 13, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Christian v. New York Department Of Labor

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-5704

Appellee

New York Department Of Labor

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Christian

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 614 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, November 13, 1973

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Commissioner v. "Americans United" Inc.

Mon, 07 Jan 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1371

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

"Americans United" Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 752 (1974)

Argued

Monday, January 7, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, May 15, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Commissioner, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Davis v. Alaska

Wed, 12 Dec 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-5794

Petitioner

Davis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alaska

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 308 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, December 12, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, February 27, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None