Cases - 1975 term

Roberts v. Louisiana

Tue, 30 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Louisiana State Capitol

900 N 3rd St Baton Rouge LA 70802

Baton Rouge, LA 70802

United States

30° 27' 19.6488" N, 91° 11' 18.5892" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-5844

Petitioner

Roberts

Respondent

Louisiana

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 325 (1976)

Argued

March 30-31, 1976

Decided

Friday, July 2, 1976

Advocates

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

James L. Babin (Argued the cause for the respondent)

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

Facts of the Case

Following his conviction for first-degree murder, and subsequent imposition of a death sentence, Roberts challenged the constitutionality of Louisiana's death penalty scheme. This scheme mandated the death penalty's imposition, regardless of any mercy recommendation, whenever the jury found that the defendant demonstrated a specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm while in the commission of at least one of five different narrowly defined types of homicide. The sentencing scheme also required juries, in all first- degree murder cases, to be instructed on the lesser charges of manslaughter and second degree murder even if no evidence existed to support such verdicts.

This case is one of the five "Death Penalty Cases" along with Gregg v. Georgia, Jurek v. Texas, Proffitt v. Florida, and Woodson v. North Carolina.

Question

Does Louisiana's death-penalty sentencing scheme violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' safeguards against arbitrary and capricious death penalty impositions?

Conclusion

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

Yes. By mandating the death penalty's imposition for certain crimes, Louisiana's sentencing scheme fails to afford juries the constitutionally required opportunity to consider any mitigating factors presented either by the circumstances of the crime or the individual offender's character. The Supreme Court also held that by requiring jurors to be instructed on the lesser charges of manslaughter and second-degree murder, even if no evidence exits to support such verdicts, Louisiana's sentencing scheme encourages them to disregard their oaths by recommending a verdict for a lesser offense whenever they feel that the death penalty is inappropriate.

Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. U.S.

Wed, 14 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-940

Petitioner

Colorado River Water Cons. Dist.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 74-949

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 800 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Colorado River Water Cons. Dist., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 43 U.S.C. 666

None

Hortonville Dist. v. Hortonville Ed. Assn.

Mon, 23 Feb 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1606

Petitioner

Hortonville Dist.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hortonville Ed. Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 482 (1976)

Argued

February 23-24, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 17, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Testan

Wed, 12 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-753

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Testan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 392 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, November 12, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, March 2, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Andresen v. Maryland

Wed, 25 Feb 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1646

Petitioner

Andresen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maryland

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 463 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, February 25, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, June 29, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Maryland, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Oil Workers v. Mobil Oil Corp.

Mon, 29 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1254

Petitioner

Oil Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mobil Oil Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 407 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Oil Workers, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Youakim v. Miller

Mon, 08 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-6935

Appellee

Miller

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Youakim

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 231 (1976)

Argued

Monday, December 8, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, March 31, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Kerr v. United States District Court

Tue, 11 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1023

Petitioner

Kerr

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States District Court

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 394 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, November 11, 1975

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States District Court, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Roemer v. Maryland Public Works Bd.

Mon, 23 Feb 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-730

Appellee

Maryland Public Works Bd.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Roemer

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 736 (1976)

Argued

Monday, February 23, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Maryland Public Works Bd., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

None

Fisher v. United States

Mon, 03 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-18

Petitioner

Fisher

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

United States et al. v. Kasmir et al., No. 74-611

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 391 (1976)

Argued

Monday, November 3, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, April 21, 1976

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for petitioners in No. 74-611 and respondents in No. 74-18)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Imbler v. Pachtman

Mon, 03 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-5435

Petitioner

Imbler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pachtman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 409 (1976)

Argued

Monday, November 3, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, March 2, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Pachtman, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Machinists v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Comm'n

Mon, 22 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-185

Petitioner

Machinists

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Comm'n

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 132 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1976

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight

Wed, 12 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1025

Petitioner

Hines

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Anchor Motor Freight

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 554 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, November 12, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, March 3, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Hines, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

General Electric Co. v. Gilbert

Mon, 19 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1589

Petitioner

General Electric Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gilbert

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 74-1590

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 125 (1976)

Argued

January 19-20, 1976

Reargued:

Wednesday, October 13, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, December 7, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for General Electric Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Train v. Colorado Pub. Int. Research Group

Tue, 09 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1270

Petitioner

Train

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Colorado Pub. Int. Research Group

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 1 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, December 9, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Train, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water), plus amendments

None

Mathews v. Weber

Tue, 04 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-850

Petitioner

Mathews

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Weber

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

423 U.S. 261 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, November 4, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, January 14, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Weber, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 636

None

Woodson v. North Carolina

Wed, 31 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

North Carolina State Capitol

1 E Edenton St Raleigh NC 27601

Raleigh, NC 27601

United States

35° 46' 49.4652" N, 78° 38' 20.7204" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-5491

Petitioner

Woodson

Respondent

North Carolina

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 280 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, March 31, 1976

Decided

Friday, July 2, 1976

Advocates

Sidney S. Eagles, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondent)

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

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

Facts of the Case

The state of North Carolina enacted legislation that made the death penalty mandatory for all convicted first-degree murderers. Consequently, when James Woodson was found guilty of such an offense, he was automatically sentenced to death. Woodson challenged the law, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of North Carolina.

This case is one of the five "Death Penalty Cases" along with Gregg v. Georgia, Jurek v. Texas, Proffitt v. Florida, and Roberts v. Louisiana.

Question

Did the mandatory death penalty law violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

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

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the North Carolina law was unconstitutional. The Court found three problems with the law: First, the law "depart[ed] markedly from contemporary standards" concerning death sentences. The historical record indicated that the public had rejected mandatory death sentences. Second, the law provided no standards to guide juries in their exercise of "the power to determine which first-degree murderers shall live and which shall die." Third, the statute failed to allow consideration of the character and record of individual defendants before inflicting the death penalty. The Court noted that "the fundamental respect for humanity" underlying the Eighth Amendment required such considerations.

United States v. Mandujano

Wed, 05 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-754

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mandujano

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 564 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, November 5, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, May 19, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miranda Warnings

None

Examining Board v. Flores De Otero

Mon, 08 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1267

Appellee

Flores De Otero

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Examining Board

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 572 (1976)

Argued

Monday, December 8, 1975

Decided

Thursday, June 17, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Flores De Otero, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Ohio v. Gallagher

Tue, 02 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-492

Petitioner

Ohio

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gallagher

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 257 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, December 2, 1975

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Ohio, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. Orleans

Mon, 22 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-328

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Orleans

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 807 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Kelley v. Johnson

Mon, 08 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1269

Petitioner

Kelley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Johnson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 238 (1976)

Argued

Monday, December 8, 1975

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Pennsylvania v. New Jersey

Wed, 03 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

68 ORIG

Plaintiff

Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

New Jersey

Respondent Type

Defendant

Consolidation

No. 69 ORIG

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 660 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, December 3, 1975

Decided

Thursday, June 17, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for New Jersey, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Kleppe v. Delta Mining, Inc.

Mon, 06 Oct 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-521

Petitioner

Kleppe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Delta Mining, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

423 U.S. 403 (1976)

Argued

Monday, October 6, 1975

Decided

Monday, January 26, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Kleppe, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 30 U.S.C. 801

None

Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.

Tue, 02 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1302

Appellee

Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Usery

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

Turner Elkhorn Mining Co. et al. v. Usery, Secretary of Labor, et al., No. 74-1316

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 1 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, December 2, 1975

Decided

Thursday, July 1, 1976

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for appellants in No. 74-1302 and for appellees in No. 74-1316)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Usery, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

United States v. Dinitz

Tue, 02 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-928

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dinitz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 600 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, December 2, 1975

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Stone v. Powell

Tue, 24 Feb 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Bonanza Liquor Store San Bernardino, CA

United States

34° 6' 30.042" N, 117° 17' 23.154" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1055

Petitioner

Stone

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Powell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 74-1222

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 465 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, February 24, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, July 6, 1976

Advocates

William C. Cunningham (Argued the cause for the respondent Rice)

Melvin Kent Kammerlohr (Argued the cause for the petitioner Wolff)

Robert W. Peterson (By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the respondent Powell)

Robert R. Granucci (Argued the cause for the petitioner Stone)

Facts of the Case

Lloyd Powell was convicted of murder by a California court. Powell sought relief in federal district court by filing a writ of federal habeas corpus. Powell claimed that the search that uncovered the murder weapon was unlawful and that the evidence should have been inadmissible at trial. This case was decided together with Wolf v. Rice.

Question

Were federal courts obligated to consider claims of illegal searches and seizures after such claims had been decided by state courts?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Stone, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that where states had provided opportunities for full and fair litigation of Fourth Amendment claims, the Constitution did not require the granting of federal habeas corpus relief. The Court also held that any additional benefits from considering search and seizure claims of state prisoners on collateral review would be small in relation to the costs. The Court found that the Fourth Amendment values protected by the exclusionary rule would not be significantly enhanced in such situations and that deterrence of police misconduct was unlikely to increase.

FPC v. Conway Corp.

Wed, 21 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-342

Petitioner

Federal Power Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Conway Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 271 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, April 21, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Conway Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Power

None

Doyle v. Ohio

Mon, 23 Feb 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-5014

Petitioner

Doyle

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ohio

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 75-5015

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 610 (1976)

Argued

Monday, February 23, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 17, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

North v. Russell

Tue, 09 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1409

Appellee

Russell

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

North

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 328 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, December 9, 1975

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Russell, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Montanye v. Haymes

Wed, 21 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-520

Petitioner

Montanye

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Haymes

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 236 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, April 21, 1976

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Time, Inc. v. Firestone

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-944

Petitioner

Time, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Firestone

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 448 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, October 14, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, March 2, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

Split Vote

None

New Hampshire v. Maine

Mon, 19 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

64 ORIG

Plaintiff

New Hampshire

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Maine

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 363 (1976)

Argued

Monday, April 19, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer

Tue, 20 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-251

Petitioner

Fitzpatrick

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bitzer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Bitzer, Chairman, State Employees' Retirement Commission, et al. v. Matthews et al., No. 75-283

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 445 (1976)

Argued

April 20-21, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1976

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae in both cases)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Fitzpatrick, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fourteenth Amendment Enforcement Clause

None

Flint Ridge Dev. Co. v. Scenic Rivers Assn.

Tue, 27 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-510

Petitioner

Flint Ridge Dev. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Scenic Rivers Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 75-545

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 776 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, April 27, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Flint Ridge Dev. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Environmental Policy

None

United States v. Maccollom

Mon, 29 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1487

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maccollom

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 317 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 10, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Washington v. Davis

Mon, 01 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Metropolitan Police Department

300 Indiana Ave NW Washington DC 20001

Washington, DC 20001

United States

38° 53' 41.3052" N, 77° 0' 56.0736" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1492

Petitioner

Washington

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Davis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 229 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1976

Advocates

Mark L. Evans (Argued the cause for the US Civil Service Commission as respondents under Rule 21 (4))

Richard B. Sobol (Argued the cause for the respondents Harley et al)

David P. Sutton (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

After the applications of two blacks were rejected by the District of Columbia Police Department, the two men filed suit against Mayor Walter E. Washington. The men alleged that the Department's recruiting procedures, including a written personnel test, discriminated against racial minorities. They claimed that the test was unrelated to job performance and excluded a disproportionate number of black applicants.

Question

Did the recruiting procedures violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the procedures and written personnel test did not constitute racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that the Clause was designed to prevent official discrimination on the basis of race; laws or other official acts that had racially disproportionate impacts did not automatically become constitutional violations. The Court reasoned that the D.C. Police Department's procedures did not have discriminatory intent and were racially neutral measures of employment qualification.

Norton v. Mathews

Tue, 13 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-6212

Appellee

Mathews

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Norton

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 524 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, June 29, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

New Orleans v. Dukes

Tue, 11 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-775

Appellee

Dukes

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

New Orleans

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 297 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, November 11, 1975

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for New Orleans, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Dept. Of Air Force v. Rose

Wed, 08 Oct 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-489

Petitioner

Dept. Of Air Force

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rose

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 352 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, October 8, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, April 21, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rose, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Mathews v. Eldridge

Mon, 06 Oct 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Location

United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Social Security Division

200 Independence Ave SW Washington DC 20201

Washington, DC 20201

United States

38° 53' 15.2376" N, 77° 0' 49.104" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-204

Petitioner

Mathews

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Eldridge

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 319 (1976)

Argued

Monday, October 6, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1976

Advocates

Donald E. Earls (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Robert H. Bork (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

George Eldridge, who had originally been deemed disabled due to chronic anxiety and back strain, was informed by letter that his disability status was ending and that his benefits would be terminated. Social Security Administration procedures provided for ample notification and an evidentiary hearing before a final determination was made, but Eldridge's benefits were cut off until that hearing could take place. Eldridge challenged the termination of his benefits without such a hearing.

Question

Did the lack of an evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of disability benefits violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mathews, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

No. In an 6-to-2 decision, the Court held that the initial termination of Eldridge's benefits without a hearing did not violate due process. The Court noted that due process was "flexible" and called for "such procedural protections as the particular situation demands." The Court found that there were numerous safeguards to prevents errors in making decisions to terminate disability benefits and argued that "[a]t some point the benefit or an additional safeguard to the individual affected by the administrative action and to society, in terms of increased assurance that the action is just, may be outweighed by the cost."

Alamo Land & Cattle Co. v. Arizona

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-125

Petitioner

Alamo Land & Cattle Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arizona

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 295 (1976)

Argued

October 14-15, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Alamo Land & Cattle Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc.

Mon, 01 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1563

Petitioner

Eastlake

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Forest City Enterprises, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 668 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

South Dakota v. Opperman

Mon, 29 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-76

Petitioner

South Dakota

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Opperman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 364 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, July 6, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Dann v. Johnston

Tue, 09 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1033

Petitioner

Dann

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Johnston

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 219 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, December 9, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, March 31, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Dann, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 35 U.S.C. 103

None

Elrod v. Burns

Mon, 19 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1520

Petitioner

Elrod

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Burns

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 347 (1976)

Argued

Monday, April 19, 1976

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bellotti v. Baird

Tue, 23 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

US District Court for the District of Massachusetts

595 Main St Worcester MA 06108

Worcester, MA 06108

United States

42° 15' 38.3292" N, 71° 48' 14.3172" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-73

Appellant

Frances Bellotti, Attorney General of Massachusetts et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

William Baird et al.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Consolidation

Hunerwadel v. Baird, No. 75-109

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 132 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, March 23, 1976

Decided

Thursday, July 1, 1976

Advocates

S. Stephen Rosenfeld (argued the cause for appellant Bellotti)

Brian A. Riley (argued the cause for appellant Hunerwadel)

Roy Lucas (argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Massachusetts enacted a law specifying consent requirements for unmarried minors seeking abortions. William Baird, on behalf of an abortion counseling organization, Parents Aid Society, filed a class action under the Fourteenth Amendment challenging the statute against state Attorney General Frances Bellotti and all district attorneys within the state. Baird argued that the statute created a parental veto. Parental vetoes were ruled unconstitutional in Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth. The federal District Court struck down the law. Bellotti appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, contending that the District Court should have abstained until a decision on the statute by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Question

Should the federal District Court have abstained from rendering a judgment until a decision from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court held that the District Court should have abstained and vacated the judgment. There was ambiguity in whether the Massachusetts statute created a "parental veto," which under Planned Parenthood v. Danforth affected the constitutionality of the statute. Since the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling would have resolved the ambiguity, the District Court should have abstained.

Paul v. Davis

Tue, 04 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-891

Petitioner

Paul

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Davis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 693 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, November 4, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, March 23, 1976

Facts of the Case

A flyer identifying "active shoplifters" was distributed to merchants in the Louisville, Kentucky area. The flyer included a photograph of Edward C. Davis III, who had been arrestedon a shoplifting charge. When the charge was dismissed, Davis brought an action against Edgar Paul, the Louisville chief of police. Davis alleged that the distribution of the flyer had stigmatized him and deprived him of his constitutional rights.

Question

Did the distribution of the flyer violate Davis's right to privacy and liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Paul, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Davis had not been deprived of any constitutional rights under the Due Process Clause. The Court also emphasized that constitutional privacy interests did not cover Davis's claims. The Court argued that the constitutional right to privacy was limited to matters relating to "marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education." The publication of records of official acts, such as arrests, did not fall under the rubric of privacy rights.

Runyon v. McCrary

Mon, 26 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Fairfax-Brewster School

5860 Glen Forest Dr Falls Church VA 22041

Falls Church, VA 22041

United States

38° 51' 17.3988" N, 77° 8' 4.1244" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-62

Petitioner

Russell L. Runyon et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Michael McCrary et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 75-66

No. 75-278

No. 75-306

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 160 (1976)

Argued

Monday, April 26, 1976

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1976

Advocates

Louis Koutoulakos (argued the cause for the petitioners in 75-62)

Andrew A. Lipscomb (argued the cause for the petitioners in 75-66 and respondents in 75-306)

George S. Leonard (argued the cause for the petitioners in 75-278)

Roderic V. O. Boggs (argued the cause for the petitioners in 75-306)

Allison W. Brown, Jr. (argued the cause for the respondents in 75-62, 75-66, and 75-278)

Facts of the Case

Michael McCrary and Colin Gonzales were black children who were denied admission to Bobbe's School. Gonzales was also denied admission to Fairfax- Brewster School. McCrary and Gonzales's parents filed a class action against the schools, suspecting the denials were due to their children's race. A federal district court ruled for McCrary and Gonzales, finding that the school's admission policies were racially discriminatory. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision.

Question

(1) Were the schools' admission policies in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981?

(2) Did 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 violate the Constitutional right to privacy and free association?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Mccrary, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1981)

Yes and no. In a 6-2 opinion, the Court held that Section 1981 prohibited the racially discriminatory policies of the schools. While the schools were private, Jones v. Alfred Meyer Co. held that Section 1981 applied to "purely private acts of racial discrimination." Writing for the majority, Justice Potter Stewart described the school's admission policies as "classical violation[s] of Section 1981." While the Court acknowledged the right to free association of parents to send their children to schools that "promote the belief that racial segregation is desirable," it was not entitled the constitutional protection. Additionally, the Court cited Pierce v. Society of Sisters and the right of the State "reasonably to regulate all schools."

Gregg v. Georgia

Wed, 31 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Georgia State Capitol

206 Washington Street Atlanta GA 30334

Atlanta, GA 30334

United States

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

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-6257

Petitioner

Gregg

Respondent

Georgia

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 153 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, March 31, 1976

Decided

Friday, July 2, 1976

Advocates

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

G. Hughel Harrison (By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the petitioner)

G. Thomas Davis (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

A jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery and murder and sentenced him to death. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence except as to its imposition for the robbery conviction. Gregg challenged his remaining death sentence for murder, claiming that his capital sentence was a "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

This case is one of the five "Death Penalty Cases" along with Jurek v. Texas, Roberts v. Louisiana, Proffitt v. Florida, and Woodson v. North Carolina.

Question

Is the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Georgia, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

No. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that a punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances. In extreme criminal cases, such as when a defendant has been convicted of deliberately killing another, the careful and judicious use of the death penalty may be appropriate if carefully employed. Georgia's death penalty statute assures the judicious and careful use of the death penalty by requiring a bifurcated proceeding where the trial and sentencing are conducted separately, specific jury findings as to the severity of the crime and the nature of the defendant, and a comparison of each capital sentence's circumstances with other similar cases. Moreover, the Court was not prepared to overrule the Georgia legislature's finding that capital punishment serves as a useful deterrent to future capital crimes and an appropriate means of social retribution against its most serious offenders.

Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wetzel

Mon, 19 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1245

Petitioner

Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wetzel

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 737 (1976)

Argued

Monday, January 19, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, March 23, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Wetzel, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

United States v. Agurs

Wed, 28 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-491

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Agurs

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 97 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, April 28, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Buffalo Forge Co. v. Steelworkers

Wed, 24 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-339

Petitioner

Buffalo Forge Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Steelworkers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 397 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, March 24, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, July 6, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Steelworkers, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Norris-LaGuardia

None

Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc.

Wed, 03 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-110

Petitioner

Sakraida

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ag Pro, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 273 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, March 3, 1976

Decided

Friday, April 2, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Sakraida, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 35 U.S.C. 103

None

United States v. Miller

Mon, 12 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

A bank Byron, GA 31008

United States

32° 39' 7.7616" N, 83° 45' 21.3336" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1179

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mitch Miller

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 435 (1976)

Argued

Monday, January 12, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, April 21, 1976

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States)

D. L. Rampey, Jr. (argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Mitch Miller was charged of carrying alcohol distilling equipment and whiskey on which liquor tax had not been paid. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) issued subpoenas to two of Miller's banks, The Citizens & Southern National Bank of Warner Robins and the Bank of Byron requesting records of Miller's accounts. The banks complied with the subpoenas, and the evidence was used during Miller's trial in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Miller was convicted and appealed his conviction alleging that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in his favor.

Question

Were Miller's bank records illegally seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

No. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and held that Miller had no right to privacy in his bank records. Writing for the majority, Justice Lewis F. Powell asserted that the "documents subpoenaed are not [Miller's] 'private papers'," but instead, part of the bank's business records. Consistent with Hoffa v. United States, Miller's rights were not violated when a third party - his bank - transmitted information that he had entrusted them with to the government.

Hynes v. Mayor Of Oradell

Wed, 10 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1329

Appellee

Mayor Of Oradell

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hynes

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 610 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, December 10, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, May 19, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bishop v. Wood

Mon, 01 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1303

Petitioner

Bishop

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wood

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 341 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 10, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mass. Board of Retirement v. Murgia

Wed, 10 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Massachusetts State House

1 Ashburton Place Boston MA 02108

Boston, MA 02108

United States

42° 21' 33.0156" N, 71° 3' 44.5176" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1044

Appellee

Murgia

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mass. Board of Retirement

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 307 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, December 10, 1975

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1976

Advocates

Robert D. City (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Terence P. O'Malley (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

Robert Murgia, although he was in excellent physical and mental health, was forced to retire at age fifty according to state law. Murgia had been a uniformed officer in the state police force. Murgia successfully challenged the mandatory retirement law in district court.

Question

Did the Massachusetts law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Mass. Board of Retirement, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the law did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that the right of governmental employment was not per se fundamental, and that uniformed state police officers over 50 did not constitute a suspect class under the Clause. Applying a rational relationship test, the Court reasoned that the statute was sufficiently justified as a means of protecting the public "by assuring physical preparedness of [the] uniformed police." The Court noted that while the law may not have been the best means to accomplish this purpose, it did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment merely because of its imperfections.

Fea v. Algonquin Sng, Inc.

Tue, 20 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-382

Petitioner

Fea

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Algonquin Sng, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 548 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, April 20, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 17, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Fea, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 19 U.S.C. 1862

None

United States v. Powell

Mon, 06 Oct 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-884

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Powell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975)

Opinion

423 U.S. 87 (1975)

Argued

Monday, October 6, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, December 2, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Singleton v. Wulff

Tue, 23 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1393

Petitioner

Singleton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wulff

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 106 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, March 23, 1976

Decided

Thursday, July 1, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Planned Parenthood Of Missouri v. Danforth

Tue, 23 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1151

Appellee

Danforth

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Planned Parenthood Of Missouri

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 74-1419

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 52 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, March 23, 1976

Decided

Thursday, July 1, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Planned Parenthood Of Missouri, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Greer v. Spock

Wed, 05 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-848

Petitioner

Greer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Spock

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 828 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, November 5, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. United Continental Tuna

Mon, 03 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-869

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United Continental Tuna

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 164 (1976)

Argued

Monday, November 3, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, March 30, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 46 U.S.C. 741

None

Barrett v. United States

Tue, 04 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-5566

Petitioner

Barrett

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

423 U.S. 212 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, November 4, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets, National Firearms, Organized Crime Control, Comprehensive Crime Control, or Gun Control Acts, except for RICO (q.v.) portion

None

Aldinger v. Howard

Wed, 24 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-6521

Petitioner

Aldinger

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Howard

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 1 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, March 24, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Howard, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Hancock v. Train

Tue, 13 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-220

Petitioner

Hancock

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Train

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 167 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Train, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clean Air

None

Beckwith v. United States

Mon, 01 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1243

Petitioner

Beckwith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 341 (1976)

Argued

Monday, December 1, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, April 21, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miranda Warnings

None

United States v. Gaddis

Mon, 15 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1141

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gaddis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 544 (1976)

Argued

Monday, December 15, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, March 3, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 2113

None

FPC v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:06:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-584

Petitioner

Federal Power Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

423 U.S. 326 (1976)

Decided

Monday, January 19, 1976

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

Nader v. Allegheny Airlines

Wed, 24 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-455

Petitioner

Nader

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Allegheny Airlines

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 290 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, March 24, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Nader, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 49 U.S.C. 1381

None

Cappaert v. United States

Mon, 12 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1107

Petitioner

Cappaert

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 74-1304

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 128 (1976)

Argued

Monday, January 12, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 16 U.S.C. 431

None

Transamerican Freight v. Brada Miller

Wed, 08 Oct 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-54

Petitioner

Transamerican Freight

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brada Miller

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

423 U.S. 28 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, October 8, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, November 12, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees

Wed, 25 Feb 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1452

Petitioner

Hospital Bldg. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rex Hospital Trustees

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 738 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, February 25, 1976

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hospital Bldg. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

United States v. Foster Lumber Co.

Wed, 12 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-799

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Foster Lumber Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 32 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, November 12, 1975

Reargued:

Tuesday, October 5, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, November 2, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Moe v. Salish & Kootenai Tribes

Tue, 20 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1656

Appellee

Salish & Kootenai Tribes

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Moe

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 75-50

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 463 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, January 20, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, April 27, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1341

None

Baxter v. Palmigiano

Mon, 15 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1187

Petitioner

Baxter

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Palmigiano

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 74-1194

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 308 (1976)

Argued

Monday, December 15, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, April 20, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Baxter, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Rizzo v. Goode

Tue, 11 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-942

Petitioner

Rizzo

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Goode

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

423 U.S. 362 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, November 11, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, January 21, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rizzo, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Quinn v. Muscare

Tue, 30 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-130

Petitioner

Quinn

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Muscare

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 560 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, March 30, 1976

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

De Canas v. Bica

Tue, 16 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-882

Petitioner

De Canas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bica

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 351 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, December 16, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, February 25, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for De Canas, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Henderson v. Morgan

Tue, 24 Feb 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1529

Petitioner

Henderson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Morgan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 637 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, February 24, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 17, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Drew Municipal School Dist. v. Andrews

Wed, 03 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1318

Petitioner

Drew Municipal School Dist.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Andrews

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 559 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, March 3, 1976

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Brown v. GSA

Mon, 01 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-768

Petitioner

Brown

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

General Services Administration

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 820 (1976)

Argued

March 1-2, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1976

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for GSA, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

United States v. Janis

Mon, 08 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-958

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Janis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 433 (1976)

Argued

Monday, December 8, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, July 6, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Exclusionary Rule (admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment)

None

Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder

Wed, 03 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1042

Petitioner

Ernst & Ernst

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hochfelder

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 185 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, December 3, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, March 30, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Ernst & Ernst, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Goldberg v. United States

Wed, 14 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-6293

Petitioner

Goldberg

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 94 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, March 30, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Nebraska Press Assoc. v. Stuart

Mon, 19 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

District Court of Lincoln County

301 N Jeffers St North Platte NE 69101

North Platte, NE 69101

United States

41° 8' 8.7972" N, 100° 45' 46.0944" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-817

Petitioner

Nebraska Press Assoc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stuart

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 539 (1976)

Argued

Monday, April 19, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, June 30, 1976

Advocates

Harold Mosher (Argued the cause for the respondent Stuart)

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

Milton R. Larson (Argued the cause for the State of Nebraska)

Floyd Abrams (Argued the cause for the National Broadcasting Co. et al. as amici curiae urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

A Nebraska state trial judge, presiding over a widely publicized murder trial, entered an order restraining members of the press from publishing or broadcasting accounts of confessions made by the accused to the police. The judge felt that this measure was necessary to guarantee a fair trial to the accused.

Question

Did the judge's order violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

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

Yes. The Court agreed with the trial judge that the murder case would generate "intense and pervasive pretrial publicity." However, the unanimous court held that the practical problems associated with implementing a prior restraint on the press in this case would not have served the accused's rights. Chief Justice Burger reasoned that"a whole community cannot be restrained from discussing a subject intimately affecting life within it."

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte

Mon, 26 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1560

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Martinez-Fuerte

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 75-5387

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 543 (1976)

Argued

Monday, April 26, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, July 6, 1976

Facts of the Case

Martinez-Fuerte and others were charged with transporting illegal Mexican aliens. They were stopped at a routine fixed checkpoint for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants on a major highway not far from the Mexican border.

Question

Do such stops violate the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures?

Conclusion

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

No, because if there is a reasonable collective suspicion, then individuals can be searched in the interest of public safety. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., writing for the 7-to-2 majority, said: "The defendants note correctly that to accommodate public and private interests some quantum of individualized suspicion is usually a prerequisite to a constitutional search or seizure.... But the Fourth Amendment imposes no irreducible requirement of such suspicion."

Prepared by Michael Brandow.

Proffitt v. Florida

Wed, 31 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-5706

Petitioner

Proffitt

Respondent

Florida

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 242 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, March 31, 1976

Decided

Friday, July 2, 1976

Advocates

Clinton A. Curtis (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

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

Robert L. Shevin (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Following his Florida conviction for first-degree murder and the imposition of the death penalty, Proffitt challenged the constitutionality of both his death sentence, alleging it was a "cruel and unusual" punishment, and Florida's capital-sentencing procedure, alleging is was arbitrary and capricious insofar as it permitted judges rather than juries to act as sole sentencing authorities.

This case is one of the five "Death Penalty Cases" along with Gregg v. Georgia, Jurek v. Texas, Roberts v. Louisiana, and Woodson v. North Carolina.

Question

Is the death penalty a "cruel and unusual" punishment? Is Florida's capital- sentencing procedure unconstitutional?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Florida, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

No and no. The Court held that the death penalty was not a "cruel and unusual" punishment per se, and that Florida's capital-sentencing procedure was not unconstitutionally arbitrary and/or capricious. Although empowering trial judges with sole sentencing authority, the statutory procedure tightly prescribed their relevant decision-making process. The procedure requires sentencing judges to focus on both the crime's circumstances and the defendant's character by weighing eight statutory aggravating factors against seven statutory mitigating factors. Furthermore, sentencing judges are required to submit a written explanation of their death-sentence finding for the purpose of automatic review by Florida's Supreme Court. Such strict requirements sufficiently safeguard against the presence of any constitutional deficiencies arising from an arbitrary and/or capricious imposition of the death penalty.

Ristaino v. Ross

Mon, 08 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1216

Petitioner

Ristaino

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ross

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 589 (1976)

Argued

December 8-9, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, March 3, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Ristaino, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Hampton v. United States

Mon, 01 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Location

The Pud Bar St. Louis, MO

United States

38° 37' 38.9676" N, 90° 11' 54.3012" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-5822

Petitioner

Charles Hampton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 484 (1976)

Argued

Monday, December 1, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, April 27, 1976

Advocates

David A. Lang (by appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the petitioner pro hac vice)

Keith A. Jones (Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Jules Hutton was a Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) informant that made the acquaintance of Charles Hampton. According to the government, Hampton told Hutton that he could acquire heroin and was willing to sell it. Hutton replied that he would find a buyer and orchestrate a sale. Hampton and Hutton arranged two appointments with DEA agents posing as buyers. At the second appointment, Hampton was arrested. According to Hampton, he was unaware that he was selling heroin. He claimed that Hutton provided him with the drugs and that Hutton had told him they were counterfeit. Since the government, through Hutton, had provided him with the drugs, he had been entrapped and was therefore not guilty. Hampton was convicted after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. He appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, alleging entrapment and a violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed his conviction.

Question

Was Hampton's conviction a result of entrapment and in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

No. In a 5-3 decision, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Eighth Circuit. Writing for the majority, Justice William H. Rehnquist relied on the Court's earlier opinion in United States v. Russell in that the "defense of entrapment was not available where…a Government agent supplied a necessary ingredient in the manufacture of an illicit drug." While Hampton's case involved distribution and not manufacture, Hampton was still "predisposed to commit the crime." As opposed to the Government inducing Hampton to commit the crime, "the police, the Government informant, and [Hampton] acted in concert." Therefore, no violation of due process occurred.

Thermtron Products, Inc., v. Hermansdorfer

Tue, 07 Oct 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-206

Petitioner

Thermtron Products, Inc.,

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hermansdorfer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

423 U.S. 336 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, October 7, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, January 20, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Thermtron Products, Inc.,, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1441

None

Texas v. Louisiana

Mon, 19 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

36 ORIG

Plaintiff

Texas

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 465 (1976)

Argued

Monday, January 19, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Cantor v. Detroit Edison Co.

Wed, 14 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-122

Petitioner

Cantor

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Detroit Edison Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 579 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, July 6, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Carey v. Sugar

Tue, 20 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-858

Appellee

Sugar

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Carey

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 74-859

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 73 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, January 20, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Jurek v. Texas

Tue, 30 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-5394

Petitioner

Jurek

Respondent

Texas

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 262 (1976)

Argued

March 30-31, 1976

Decided

Friday, July 2, 1976

Facts of the Case

After his conviction by a Texas trial court for murder and the imposition of the death penalty, Jurek challenged the constitutionality of both his death sentence, alleging it was a "cruel and unusual" punishment, and the state's capital-sentencing procedure, alleging it would result in arbitrary and "freakish" imposition of the death penalty.

This case is one of the five "Death Penalty Cases" along with Gregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Roberts v. Louisiana, and Woodson v. North Carolina.

Question

Is the death penalty a "cruel and unusual" punishment? Is Texas' capital- sentencing procedure unconstitutional?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Texas, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

The Court held that the death penalty was not per se a "cruel and unusual" punishment. Furthermore, the capital sentencing procedure in Texas was not unconstitutional on the theory that it would result in arbitrary and freakish impositions of the death penalty. While death penalty sentencing systems which permit juries to consider only aggravating, and no mitigating, circumstances are unconstitutional, Texas' sentencing system is not like this. Under its sentencing scheme, Texas juries may consider whatever evidence of mitigating circumstances there may be - thus allowing them to ponder not only why the death penalty should be imposed, but also why it should not. These options sufficiently focus the juries' attention on the defendant's unique circumstances and character, thus meeting constitutional requirements of particularity.

Foremost-Mckesson v. Provident Securities

Tue, 07 Oct 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-742

Petitioner

Foremost-Mckesson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Provident Securities

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

423 U.S. 232 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, October 7, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

FPC v. Moss

Wed, 03 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-883

Petitioner

Federal Power Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Moss

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 494 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, December 3, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, March 3, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for FPC, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Natural Gas, or Natural Gas Policy Acts

None

Buckley v. Valeo

Mon, 10 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Congress

Constitution and Delaware Street Washington D.C. 20002

Washington 20002

United States

38° 53' 31.1496" N, 77° 0' 29.1744" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-436

Appellee

Valeo

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Buckley

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 75-437

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 1 (1976)

Argued

Monday, November 10, 1975

Decided

Friday, January 30, 1976

Advocates

Brice M. Clagett (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Lloyd N. Cutler (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Archibald Cox (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Ralph S. Spritzer (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Daniel M. Friedman (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Joel M. Gora (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Ralph K. Winter, Jr. (As <i>pro hac vice</i>, argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

In the wake of the Watergate affair, Congress attempted to ferret out corruption in political campaigns by restricting financial contributions to candidates. Among other things, the law set limits on the amount of money an individual could contribute to a single campaign and it required reporting of contributions above a certain threshold amount. The Federal Election Commission was created to enforce the statute.

Question

Did the limits placed on electoral expenditures by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech and association clauses?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Buckley, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2: Appointments Clause

In this complicated case, the Court arrived at two important conclusions. First, it held that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA enhance the "integrity of our system of representative democracy" by guarding against unscrupulous practices. Second, the Court found that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment. Since these practices do not necessarily enhance the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, the Court found that restricting them did not serve a government interest great enough to warrant a curtailment on free speech and association.

United States v. Bornstein

Wed, 08 Oct 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-712

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bornstein

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

423 U.S. 303 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, October 8, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, January 14, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 31 U.S.C. 231

None

A & P Tea Co. v. Cottrell

Mon, 01 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1148

Appellee

Cottrell

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

A & P Tea Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 366 (1976)

Argued

Monday, December 1, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, February 25, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for A & P Tea Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich

Mon, 22 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-292

Petitioner

Serbian Orthodox Diocese

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Milivojevich

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 696 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Serbian Orthodox Diocese, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Free Exercise of Religion

None

Michelin Tire Corporation v. Wages

Wed, 15 Oct 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Michelin Tire Warehouse Gwinnet County, GA

United States

33° 55' 8.634" N, 84° 1' 0.2712" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1396

Petitioner

Michelin Tire Corporation

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wages

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

423 U.S. 276 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, October 15, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, January 14, 1976

Advocates

Earle B. May, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Hosea Alexander Stephens, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

The Michelin Tire Corporation (MTC) operated a warehouse in Gwinnett County, Georgia, in which products imported from France and Nova Scotia were stored for later distribution. The County levied a nondiscriminatory ad valorem property tax on the goods (a percent of the property's value). MTC claimed that the contents of the warehouse were constitutionally free from state taxation because they were in their original containers. The county declared that the products were subject to the tax because they had been sorted and arranged for sale.

Question

Did the Gwinnett County tax violate the Import-Export Clause by taxing goods that maintained the character of imports?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Wages, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 2: Export-Import Clause

The Court affirmed the decision of the Georgia Supreme Court, finding the tax to be valid. The Court stated that the Framers of the Constitution had adopted the Import-Export Clause to give the federal government a source of revenue and the superior position to regulate such foreign trade. This was to overcome the problems under the Articles of Confederation where states lacked uniformity in import regulation, burdening inter-state trade. The property tax was consistent with the Import-Export Clause because it did not (1) interfere with the Federal Government's regulation of foreign commerce (2) deprive the Federal Government of its exclusive right to revenues from imposts and duties on imports (3) interfere with the free flow of goods between the states. It taxed the use of the property and was not based on the origin of the goods.

Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co.

Mon, 03 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-728

Petitioner

Franks

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bowman Transportation Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 747 (1976)

Argued

Monday, November 3, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Franks, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Garner v. United States

Tue, 04 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-100

Petitioner

Garner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 648 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, November 4, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, March 23, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Tsc Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.

Wed, 03 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1471

Petitioner

Tsc Industries, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Northway, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 438 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, March 3, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lavine v. Milne

Tue, 02 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1137

Appellee

Milne

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lavine

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 577 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, December 2, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, March 3, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Lavine, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

NAACP v. FPC

Wed, 25 Feb 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1608

Petitioner

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Federal Power Commission

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 74-1619

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 662 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, February 25, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, May 19, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for NAACP, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Power

None

Tennessee v. Dunlap

Mon, 22 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-95

Petitioner

Tennessee

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dunlap

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 312 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 10, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Kleppe v. New Mexico

Tue, 23 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1488

Appellee

New Mexico

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Kleppe

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 529 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, March 23, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 17, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Kleppe, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 3, Paragraph 2: Property Clause

None

Chandler v. Roudebush

Tue, 02 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1599

Petitioner

Chandler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Roudebush

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 840 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, March 2, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Texas v. White

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:07:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-124

Petitioner

Texas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

White

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1975)

Opinion

423 U.S. 67 (1975)

Decided

Monday, December 1, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Texas, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

United States v. Hopkins

Mon, 19 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-246

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hopkins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 123 (1976)

Argued

April 19-20, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co.

Tue, 30 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-268

Petitioner

Radzanower

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Touche Ross & Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 148 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, March 30, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Touche Ross & Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Estelle v. Williams

Tue, 07 Oct 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-676

Petitioner

Estelle

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Williams

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 501 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, October 7, 1975

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Estelle, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall

Wed, 21 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-861

Petitioner

East Carroll Parish School Bd.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Marshall

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 636 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, January 21, 1976

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Marshall, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

None

United States v. Moore

Wed, 15 Oct 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-687

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Moore

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975)

Opinion

423 U.S. 77 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, October 15, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, December 2, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 31 U.S.C. 191

None

Hills v. Gautreaux

Tue, 20 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1047

Petitioner

Hills

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gautreaux

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 284 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, January 20, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, April 20, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Watson

Wed, 08 Oct 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-538

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Watson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

423 U.S. 411 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, October 8, 1975

Decided

Monday, January 26, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

City Of Charlotte v. Firefighters

Wed, 03 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-250

Petitioner

City Of Charlotte

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Firefighters

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 283 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, March 3, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bryan v. Itasca County

Tue, 20 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-5027

Petitioner

Bryan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Itasca County

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 373 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, April 20, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bryan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1360

None

American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Starnes

Mon, 23 Feb 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1481

Appellee

Starnes

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

American Motorists Ins. Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 637 (1976)

Argued

Monday, February 23, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, May 19, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mckinney v. Alabama

Mon, 15 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-532

Petitioner

Mckinney

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alabama

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 669 (1976)

Argued

Monday, December 15, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, March 23, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mckinney, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Burrell v. Mcray

Tue, 27 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-44

Petitioner

Burrell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mcray

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 471 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, April 27, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Commissioner v. Shapiro

Wed, 05 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-744

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shapiro

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 614 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, November 5, 1975

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Union Electric Co. v. Epa

Wed, 21 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1542

Petitioner

Union Electric Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Epa

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 246 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, January 21, 1976

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Epa, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clean Air

None

United States v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co.

Mon, 26 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-420

Appellee

Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 500 (1976)

Argued

April 26-27, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 17, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mathews v. Lucas

Tue, 13 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-88

Appellee

Lucas

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mathews

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 495 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, June 29, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Francis v. Henderson

Tue, 09 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-5808

Petitioner

Francis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Henderson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 536 (1976)

Argued

December 9-10, 1975

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Abbott Labs. v. Portland Retail Druggists

Tue, 16 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1274

Petitioner

Abbott Labs.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Portland Retail Druggists

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 1 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, December 16, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Abbott Labs., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Robinson-Patman

None

Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Consumer Council

Tue, 11 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Virginia Citizens Consumer Council

4220 North Fork Road Elliston VA 24087

Elliston, VA 24087

United States

37° 14' 10.32" N, 80° 16' 31.44" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-895

Appellee

Virginia Consumer Council

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Virginia Pharmacy Bd.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 748 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, November 11, 1975

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1976

Advocates

Alan B. Morrison (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Anthony F. Troy (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

Acting on behalf of prescription drug consumers, the Virginia Citizens Consumer Council challenged a Virginia statute that declared it unprofessional conduct for licensed pharmacists to advertise their prescription drug prices. On appeal from an adverse ruling by a three-judge District Court panel, the Supreme Court granted the Virginia State Board of Pharmacy review.

Question

Is a statutory ban on advertising prescription drug prices by licensed pharmacists a violation of "commercial speech" under the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Virginia Consumer Council, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. In a 7-to-1 opinion, the Court held that the First Amendment protects willing speakers and willing listeners equally. The Court noted that in cases of commercial speech, such as price advertising, freedom of speech protections apply just as they would to noncommercial speech. Even speech that is sold for profit, or involves financial solicitations, is protected. The Court concluded that although the Virginia State Board of Pharmacy has a legitimate interest in preserving professionalism among its members, it may not do so at the expense of public knowledge about lawful competitive pricing terms.

Mcdonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co.

Tue, 20 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-260

Petitioner

Mcdonald

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 273 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, April 20, 1976

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

National Coal Operators' Assn. v. Kleppe

Mon, 06 Oct 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-2066

Petitioner

National Coal Operators' Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kleppe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

423 U.S. 388 (1976)

Argued

Monday, October 6, 1975

Decided

Monday, January 26, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Kleppe, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 30 U.S.C. 801

None

American Foreign S. S. Co. v. Matise

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-966

Petitioner

American Foreign S. S. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Matise

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975)

Opinion

423 U.S. 150 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, October 14, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, December 16, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for American Foreign S. S. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 46 U.S.C. 596

None

Michigan v. Mosley

Mon, 06 Oct 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-653

Petitioner

Michigan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mosley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975)

Opinion

423 U.S. 96 (1975)

Argued

Monday, October 6, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, December 9, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Michigan, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miranda Warnings

None

Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp.

Wed, 21 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1607

Appellee

Alexandria Scrap Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hughes

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 794 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, January 21, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Hughes, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Epa v. State Water Resources Control Board

Tue, 13 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1435

Petitioner

Epa

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

State Water Resources Control Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 200 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Epa, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water), plus amendments

None

Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org.

Wed, 10 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1124

Petitioner

Simon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 74-1110

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 26 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, December 10, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Simon, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Young v. American Mini Theatres

Wed, 24 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Nortown Theater

7706 E. 7 Mile Rd Detroit MI 48234

Detroit, MI 48234

United States

42° 26' 2.1624" N, 83° 1' 30.3888" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-312

Petitioner

Coleman Young

Respondent

American Mini Theatres, Inc.

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 50 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, March 24, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 1976

Advocates

Maureen P. Reilly (argued the cause for the petitioner)

Stephen M. Taylor (argued the cause for the respondents American Mini Theaters)

John H. Weston (argued the cause for the respondent Nortown Theatre Inc.)

Facts of the Case

American Mini Theaters opened two theaters that showed adult movies in the city of Detroit. Two city ordinances enacted in 1972 prohibited the opening of adult theaters within 1,000 feet of other buildings with "regulated uses" or within 500 feet of any residential district. American Mini sued city officials challenging the ordinances on two grounds: that the ordinances imposed an undue burden on First Amendment rights and that ordinances violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. A federal district court ruled in favor of the city, a decision that was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The appeals court concluded that the ordinances posed a prior restraint based on content and that the ordinances ran afoul of the Equal Protection Clause.

Question

(1): Did Detroit's 1972 ordinances violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

(2): Did the ordinances qualify as a restriction on free speech in violation of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

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

No and no. In a 5-4 opinion, the court reversed the Sixth Circuit and held that Detroit's ordinances were reasonable, and although erotic material could not be completely suppressed, Detroit had adequate reasons to restrict the distribution of such material. Justice John Paul Stevens doubted that Voltaire's observation – "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" – applied to pornographic films. This prompted a stinging rebuke from Justice Potter Stewart who maintained that the free expression is neither defined nor circumscribed by popular opinion.

Geders v. United States

Mon, 01 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-5968

Petitioner

Geders

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 80 (1976)

Argued

Monday, December 1, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, March 30, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Geders, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Meachum v. Fano

Wed, 21 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-252

Petitioner

Meachum

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fano

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 215 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, April 21, 1976

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Ludwig v. Massachusetts

Wed, 28 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-377

Appellee

Massachusetts

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Ludwig

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 618 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, April 28, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, June 30, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Pasadena City Bd. Of Education v. Spangler

Tue, 27 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-164

Petitioner

Pasadena City Bd. Of Education

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Spangler

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 424 (1976)

Argued

April 27-28, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Pasadena City Bd. Of Education, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Hudgens v. NLRB

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-773

Petitioner

Hudgens

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 507 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, October 14, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, March 3, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hollowbreast

Mon, 29 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-145

Petitioner

Northern Cheyenne Tribe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hollowbreast

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 649 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, May 19, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Northern Cheyenne Tribe, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 44 Stat. 690

None

United States v. Moore

Tue, 07 Oct 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-759

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Moore

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975)

Opinion

423 U.S. 122 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, October 7, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, December 9, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 21 U.S.C. 801

None

Kleppe v. Sierra Club

Wed, 28 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-552

Petitioner

Kleppe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sierra Club

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 75-561

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 390 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, April 28, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Kleppe, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Environmental Policy

None

United States v. Santana

Tue, 27 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Mom Santana's House

2311 N 5th St Philadelphia PA 19133

Philadelphia, PA 19133

United States

39° 59' 11.1408" N, 75° 8' 28.896" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-19

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Santana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 38 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, April 27, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 1976

Advocates

Frank H. Easterbrook (Argued the cause for the United States pro hac vice)

Dennis H. Eisman (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Using marked money, police officers made an undercover heroin buy from a third party who, upon taking money from the officers, entered "Mom Santana's" house and emerged with heroin. Officers then arrested the third party and returned to Santana's house where they identified themselves as police officers, entered the house after Santana fled into it from the porch, and, after ordering her to empty her pockets, discovered some of the marked money. The search was done without a warrant.

Question

Did the search violate the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

The Court upheld the search. Relying on the the Court's decision in United States v. Watson (1976), Justice Rehnquist argued that by standing on her porch when the officers arrived, Santana was "not in an area where she had any expectation of privacy." Since the police had probable cause to arrest and search her at that point, their behavior was consistent with the Court's Watson precedent.