Cases - 1974 term

Johnson v. Railway Express Agency

Wed, 11 Dec 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1543

Petitioner

Johnson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Railway Express Agency

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 454 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, December 11, 1974

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Railway Express Agency, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Otte v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-375

Petitioner

Otte

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

419 U.S. 43 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, October 15, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, November 19, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Decoteau v. District County Court

Mon, 16 Dec 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1148

Petitioner

Decoteau

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

District County Court

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 73-1500

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 425 (1975)

Argued

Monday, December 16, 1974

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for District County Court, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 26 Stat. 1035

None

Hill v. Printing Industries Of Gulf Coast

Tue, 15 Apr 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-456

Appellee

Printing Industries Of Gulf Coast

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hill

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 937 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, April 15, 1975

Decided

Monday, June 30, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Hill, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Allenberg Cotton Co. v. Pittman

Thu, 17 Oct 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-628

Petitioner

Allenberg Cotton Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pittman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

419 U.S. 20 (1974)

Argued

Thursday, October 17, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, November 19, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Allenberg Cotton Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Iannelli v. United States

Tue, 17 Dec 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-64

Petitioner

Iannelli

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 770 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, December 17, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, March 25, 1975

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

Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong

Mon, 13 Jan 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1596

Petitioner

Hampton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mow Sun Wong

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 88 (1976)

Argued

Monday, January 13, 1975

Reargued:

Monday, January 12, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Meek v. Pittenger

Wed, 19 Feb 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1765

Appellee

Pittenger

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Meek

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 349 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, February 19, 1975

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

Split Vote

None

Mathews v. Diaz

Mon, 13 Jan 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1046

Appellee

Diaz

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mathews

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 67 (1976)

Argued

Monday, January 13, 1975

Reargued:

Monday, January 12, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co.

Wed, 13 Nov 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-5520

Petitioner

Cantrell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Forest City Publishing Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

419 U.S. 245 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, November 13, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, December 18, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Cantrell, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

City Of Richmond v. United States

Wed, 23 Apr 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-201

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

City Of Richmond

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 358 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, April 23, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, June 24, 1975

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States et al. in support of the appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for City Of Richmond, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

None

Muniz v. Hoffman

Mon, 24 Mar 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1924

Petitioner

Muniz

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hoffman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 454 (1975)

Argued

Monday, March 24, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, June 25, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ivan Allen Co. v. United States

Tue, 15 Apr 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-22

Petitioner

Ivan Allen Co.

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 617 (1975)

Argued

April 15-16, 1975

Decided

Thursday, June 26, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar

Tue, 25 Mar 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-70

Petitioner

Goldfarb

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Virginia State Bar

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 773 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, March 25, 1975

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Goldfarb, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc.

Mon, 21 Apr 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-337

Appellant

Doran

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Salem Inn, Inc.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 922 (1975)

Argued

April 21-22, 1975

Decided

Monday, June 30, 1975

Advocates

Joseph H. Darago (for the appellant)

Herbert Kassner (for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Doran, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Rogers v. United States

Mon, 14 Apr 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-6336

Petitioner

Rogers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 35 (1975)

Argued

Monday, April 14, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, June 17, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Ortiz

Tue, 18 Feb 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-2050

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ortiz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 891 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, February 18, 1975

Decided

Monday, June 30, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Phelps v. United States

Wed, 16 Apr 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-121

Petitioner

Phelps

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 330 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, April 16, 1975

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society

Wed, 22 Jan 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1977

Petitioner

Alyeska Pipeline Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wilderness Society

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 240 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, January 22, 1975

Decided

Monday, May 12, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Alyeska Pipeline Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. N. J. State Lottery Comm'n

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1471

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

N. J. State Lottery Comm'n

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 371 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, November 20, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, February 25, 1975

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Foster v. Dravo Corp.

Mon, 20 Jan 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1773

Petitioner

Foster

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dravo Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 92 (1975)

Argued

Monday, January 20, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, February 18, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Dravo Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Vella v. Ford Motor Co.

Tue, 18 Feb 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1994

Petitioner

Vella

Respondent

Ford Motor Co.

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 1 (1975)

Argued

February 18-19, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, April 15, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lascaris v. Shirley

Wed, 18 Dec 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1016

Appellee

Shirley

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lascaris

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 73-1095

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 730 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, December 18, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, March 19, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Shirley, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Burns v. Alcala

Wed, 22 Jan 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1708

Petitioner

Burns

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alcala

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 575 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, January 22, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, March 18, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Burns, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

United States v. Itt Continental Baking Co.

Wed, 13 Nov 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1290

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Itt Continental Baking Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 223 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, November 13, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, February 19, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Hicks v. Miranda

Mon, 24 Mar 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-156

Appellee

Miranda

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hicks

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 332 (1975)

Argued

Monday, March 24, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, June 24, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hicks, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

United States v. Hale

Mon, 14 Apr 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-364

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hale

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 171 (1975)

Argued

Monday, April 14, 1975

Decided

Monday, June 23, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Roe v. Doe

Wed, 18 Dec 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1446

Petitioner

Roe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Doe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 307 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, December 18, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, February 19, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Doe, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle

Mon, 13 Jan 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1595

Appellee

Traigle

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Colonial Pipeline Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 100 (1975)

Argued

Monday, January 13, 1975

Decided

Monday, April 28, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Wilson

Tue, 17 Dec 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1162

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Wilson

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 309 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, December 17, 1974

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1975

Advocates

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

Sheila Ginsberg Riesel (argued the cause for the respondent Wilson)

John S. Martin, Jr. (argued the cause for the respondent Bryan)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Cousins v. Wigoda

Mon, 11 Nov 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1106

Petitioner

Cousins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wigoda

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

419 U.S. 477 (1975)

Argued

Monday, November 11, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, January 15, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken

Mon, 21 Apr 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-452

Petitioner

Twentieth Century Music Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aiken

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 151 (1975)

Argued

Monday, April 21, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, June 17, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Aiken, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 17 U.S.C. 1

None

Harris County Comm'rs Court v. Moore

Mon, 11 Nov 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1475

Appellee

Moore

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Harris County Comm'rs Court

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 77 (1975)

Argued

Monday, November 11, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, February 18, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Harris County Comm'rs Court, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Gurley v. Rhoden

Tue, 18 Mar 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1734

Petitioner

Gurley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rhoden

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 200 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, March 18, 1975

Decided

Monday, May 12, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Rhoden, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

Bigelow v. Virginia

Wed, 18 Dec 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Virginia Weekly Newspaper Charlottesville, VA 22904

United States

38° 1' 45.5016" N, 78° 28' 36.0408" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1309

Appellee

Virginia

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Bigelow

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 809 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, December 18, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1975

Advocates

John C. Lowe (Argued the cause for the appellant)

D. Patrick Lacy, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Melvin L. Wulf (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Facts of the Case

A Virginia statute made it a misdemeanor for "any person, by publication, lecture, advertisement, or by the sale or circulation of any publication, or in any other manner, [from encouraging] or [prompting] the procuring of abortion or miscarriage." Bigelow, director and managing editor of the Virginia Weekly, was convicted under this law when his newspaper ran an advertisement for an organization which referred women to clinics and hospitals for abortions.

Question

Did the Virginia law violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution?

Conclusion

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

The Court held that the Virginia law infringed upon Bigelow's First Amendment rights and violated the Constitution. Citing prior holdings such as New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), Justice Blackmun denied the Supreme Court of Virginia's ruling that commercial speech is not afforded First Amendment protection. Furthermore, the advertisement in question contained important information in the "public interest" which went beyond merely informing readers of a commercial service. Finally, the Court feared that the Virginia statute had the potential to "impair" national and interstate publications which might choose to carry similar advertisements.

Bowman Transp. v. Ark.-Best Freight System

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1055

Petitioner

Ark.-Best Freight System

Respondent

Bowman Transp.

Consolidation

No. 73-1069

No. 73-1070

No. 73-1071

No. 73-1072

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

419 U.S. 281 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, November 20, 1974

Decided

Monday, December 23, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bowman Transp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Administrative Procedure, or Administrative Orders Review

None

United States v. Mazurie

Tue, 12 Nov 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1018

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mazurie

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

419 U.S. 544 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, November 12, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, January 21, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund

Wed, 22 Jan 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Location

US Servicemen's Fund

135 West 49th Street New York NY 10011

New York, NY 10011

United States

40° 45' 34.5528" N, 73° 58' 53.8608" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1923

Petitioner

Eastland

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S. Servicemen's Fund

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 491 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, January 22, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, May 27, 1975

Advocates

Herbert J. Miller, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Nancy Stearns (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Jeremiah S. Gutman (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

In an effort to investigate the "administration, operation, and enforcement" of the Internal Security Act of 1950, the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security subpoenaed a bank for the financial records of the United States Servicemen's Fund. This nonprofit organization had actively published newsletters and sponsored coffeehouses in which discussions critical of the Vietnam War took place. The Fund challenged the subpoena arguing that its enforcement would violate the organization's First Amendment rights since the bank records contained information about the Fund's membership.

Question

Did the actions of the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security fall within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity and not violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Eastland, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 1: Speech or Debate Clause

The Court held that the Senate Subcommittee's actions were legitimate and did not violate the Fund's First Amendment rights. Chief Justice Burger argued that the power to investigate, even through a compulsory mechanism like a subpoena, is "inherent in the power to make laws." Furthermore, the investigation was related to and aided in furthering a "legitimate task of Congress," namely, the investigation of the Internal Security Act. Burger disregarded the Fund's claim that the investigation was being conducted to expose its beliefs, many of which were "unorthodox or unpopular." He reasoned that the legitimacy of a congressional investigatory action is not derived from the motives of the members or by the information that the investigation uncovers.

North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1121

Petitioner

North Georgia Finishing, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Di-Chem, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

419 U.S. 601 (1975)

Argued

Monday, November 18, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, January 22, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for North Georgia Finishing, Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft

Tue, 14 Jan 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1316

Petitioner

Renegotiation Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Grumman Aircraft

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 168 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, January 14, 1975

Decided

Monday, April 28, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Renegotiation Board, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

American Radio Assn. v. Mobile S. S. Assn.

Mon, 21 Oct 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-748

Petitioner

American Radio Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mobile S. S. Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

419 U.S. 215 (1974)

Argued

Monday, October 21, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, December 17, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mobile S. S. Assn., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Train v. City Of New York

Tue, 12 Nov 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1377

Petitioner

Train

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

City Of New York

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 35 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, November 12, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, February 18, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for City Of New York, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water), plus amendments

None

Edwards v. Healy

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-759

Petitioner

Healy

Respondent

Edwards

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 772 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, October 16, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1975

Advocates

Kendall L. Vick (argued the cause for the appellant)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Edwards, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

U.S. v. National Assn. Securities Dealers

Mon, 17 Mar 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1701

Petitioner

National Assn. Securities Dealers

Respondent

U.S.

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 694 (1975)

Argued

Monday, March 17, 1975

Decided

Thursday, June 26, 1975

Advocates

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

Lee Loevinger (argued the cause for the appellees)

Walter P. North (argued the cause for the Securities and Exchange Commission as amicus curiae urging affirmance)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for National Assn. Securities Dealers, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 80

None

United States v. Maine

Mon, 24 Feb 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

35 ORIG

Plaintiff

United States

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Maine

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 515 (1975)

Argued

February 24-25, 1975

Decided

Monday, March 17, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Submerged Lands Acts

None

Faretta v. California

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-5772

Petitioner

Faretta

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 806 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, November 19, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 30, 1975

Advocates

Jerome B. Falk Jr. (for the petitioner, by appointment of the Court)

Howard J. Schwab (Deputy Attorney General of California, for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Faretta, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Reid v. Ins

Mon, 20 Jan 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1541

Petitioner

Reid

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 619 (1975)

Argued

Monday, January 20, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, March 18, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Ins, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Mclucas v. Dechamplain

Mon, 09 Dec 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1346

Appellee

Dechamplain

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mclucas

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 21 (1975)

Argued

Monday, December 9, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, April 15, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mclucas, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Uniform Code of Military Justice

None

Preiser v. Newkirk

Mon, 20 Jan 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-107

Petitioner

Preiser

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Newkirk

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 395 (1975)

Argued

Monday, January 20, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, June 25, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Newkirk, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Withrow v. Larkin

Wed, 18 Dec 1974 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1573

Appellee

Larkin

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Withrow

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 35 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, December 18, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, April 16, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None