Cases - 1976 term

Alabama Power Co. v. Davis

Mon, 25 Apr 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-451

Petitioner

Alabama Power Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Davis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 581 (1977)

Argued

April 25-26, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Davis, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Wooley v. Maynard

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1453

Appellee

Maynard

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Wooley

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 705 (1977)

Argued

Monday, November 29, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, April 20, 1977

Advocates

Richard S. Kohn (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Robert V. Johnson, II (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

A New Hampshire law required all noncommercial vehicles to bear license plates containing the state motto "Live Free or Die." George Maynard, a Jehovah's Witness, found the motto to be contrary to his religious and political beliefs and cut the words "or Die" off his plate. Maynard was convicted of violating the state law and was subsequently fined and given a jail sentence.

Question

Did the New Hampshire law unconstitutionally interfere with the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Maynard, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Free Exercise of Religion

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon their vehicle license plates. The Court found that the statute in question effectively required individuals to "use their private property as a 'mobile billboard' for the State's ideological message." The Court held that the State's interests in requiring the motto did not outweigh free speech principles under the First Amendment, including "the right of individuals to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster. . .an idea they find morally objectionable."

Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro

Wed, 02 Mar 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-357

Petitioner

Linmark Associates, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Willingboro

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 85 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, March 2, 1977

Decided

Monday, May 2, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. v. U.S.

Tue, 22 Mar 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-321

Petitioner

Stencel Aero Engineering Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 666 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, March 22, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 9, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for U.S., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Tort Claims, or Alien Tort Statute

None

Bayside Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRB

Wed, 10 Nov 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1267

Petitioner

Bayside Enterprises, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 298 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, November 10, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, January 11, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for NLRB, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

United States v. Donovan

Wed, 13 Oct 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-212

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Donovan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 413 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, October 13, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, January 18, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets, National Firearms, Organized Crime Control, Comprehensive Crime Control, or Gun Control Acts, except for RICO (q.v.) portion

None

United States v. Ramsey

Wed, 30 Mar 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-167

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ramsey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 606 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, March 30, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

East Texas Motor Freight v. Rodriguez

Mon, 10 Jan 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-718

Petitioner

East Texas Motor Freight

Respondent

Rodriguez

Consolidation

No. 75-651

No. 75-715

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 395 (1977)

Argued

Monday, January 10, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.

Wed, 13 Oct 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Village of Arlington Heights

33 S. Arlington Heights Road Arlington Heights IL 60005

Arlington Heights, IL 60005

United States

42° 4' 54.21" N, 87° 58' 49.6272" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-616

Petitioner

Arlington Heights

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Metropolitan Housing Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 252 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, October 13, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, January 11, 1977

Advocates

F. Willis Caruso (Argued the cause for respondents)

Jack M. Siegel (Argued the cause for petitioners)

Facts of the Case

The Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (MHDC) contracted with the Village of Arlington Heights ("Arlington") to build racially integrated low- and moderate-income housing. When MHDC applied for the necessary zoning permits, authorizing a switch from a single- to a multiple-family classification, Arlington's planning commission denied the request. Acting on behalf of itself and several minority members, MHDC challenged Arlington's denial as racially discriminatory. On appeal from an adverse district court decision, the Court of Appeals reversed and the Supreme Court granted Arlington certiorari.

Question

Was Arlington Height's denial of a zoning request, necessary for the creation of low- and moderate-income housing, racially discriminatory in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Conclusion

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

Perhaps. After finding that MHDC had proper federal standing, since it acted on behalf of black plaintiffs who stood to suffer direct and measurable injuries from Arlington's denial, the Court held that it failed to establish Arlington's racially discriminatory intent or purpose. While indicating that Arlington's zoning denial may result in a racially disproportionate impact, the evidence did not show that this was Arlington's deliberate intention. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further consideration.

Wolman v. Walter

Mon, 25 Apr 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-496

Appellee

Walter

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Wolman

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 229 (1977)

Argued

Monday, April 25, 1977

Decided

Friday, June 24, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Wolman, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

Split Vote

None

Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Comm'n

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1019

Appellee

State Tax Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Boston Stock Exchange

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 318 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, November 2, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, January 12, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Vorchheimer v. School District Of Philadelphia

Tue, 22 Feb 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-37

Petitioner

Vorchheimer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

School District Of Philadelphia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 703 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, February 22, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, April 19, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for School District Of Philadelphia, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Smith v. United States

Wed, 08 Dec 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1439

Petitioner

Smith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 291 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, December 8, 1976

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1461

None

Nixon v. Administrator Of General Services

Wed, 20 Apr 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1605

Appellee

Administrator Of General Services

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Nixon

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 425 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, April 20, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, June 28, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Administrator Of General Services, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 44 U.S.C. 2107

None

Steelworkers v. Usery

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-657

Petitioner

Steelworkers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Usery

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 305 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, November 30, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, January 12, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Usery, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure

None

Alexander v. Fioto

Tue, 01 Mar 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1704

Appellee

Fioto

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Alexander

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 634 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, March 1, 1977

Decided

Monday, April 4, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Nolde Bros., Inc. v. Bakery Workers

Tue, 09 Nov 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1198

Petitioner

Nolde Bros., Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bakery Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 243 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, November 9, 1976

Decided

Monday, March 7, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Bakery Workers, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Maher v. Roe

Tue, 11 Jan 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Connecticut Welfare Department (Now Department of Social Services)

25 Sigourney Street Hartford CT 06106

Hartford, CT 06106

United States

41° 45' 50.6556" N, 72° 41' 37.8312" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1440

Appellee

Roe

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Maher

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 464 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, January 11, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1977

Advocates

Lucy V. Katz (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Edmund C. Walsh (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Facts of the Case

In the wake of Roe v. Wade, the Connecticut Welfare Department issued regulations limiting state Medicaid benefits for first-trimester abortions to those that were "medically necessary." An indigent woman ("Susan Roe") challenged the regulations and sued Edward Maher, the Commissioner of Social Services in Connecticut.

Question

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

Conclusion

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

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Connecticut law placed no obstacles in the pregnant woman's path to an abortion, and that it did not "impinge upon the fundamental right recognized in Roe." The Court noted that there was a distinction between direct state interference with a protected activity and "state encouragement of alternative activity consonant with legislative policy." Holding that financial need alone did not identify a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause, the Court found that the law was "rationally related" to a legitimate state interest and survived scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Pearson v. Dodd

Wed, 01 Dec 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1318

Appellee

Dodd

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Pearson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 396 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, December 1, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, January 12, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Massachusetts v. Westcott

Mon, 17 Jan 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1775

Petitioner

Massachusetts

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Westcott

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 322 (1977)

Argued

Monday, January 17, 1977

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Massachusetts, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 46 U.S.C. 251

None

National Geographic v. Cal. Equalization Bd.

Wed, 23 Feb 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1868

Appellee

Cal. Equalization Bd.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

National Geographic

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 551 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, February 23, 1977

Decided

Monday, April 4, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Cal. Equalization Bd., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Mathews v. De Castro

Mon, 08 Nov 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1197

Appellee

De Castro

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mathews

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 181 (1976)

Argued

Monday, November 8, 1976

Decided

Monday, December 13, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mandel v. Bradley

Wed, 23 Feb 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-128

Appellee

Bradley

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mandel

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 173 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, February 23, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 16, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Mandel, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Craig v. Boren

Tue, 05 Oct 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Craig's Residence Stillwater, OK

United States

36° 6' 56.1852" N, 97° 3' 30.1248" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-628

Appellee

Boren

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Craig

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 190 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, October 5, 1976

Decided

Monday, December 20, 1976

Advocates

James H. Gray (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Frederick P. Gilbert (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

An Oklahoma law prohibited the sale of "nonintoxicating" 3.2 percent beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18. Curtis Craig, a male then between the ages of 18 and 21, and a licensed vendor challenged the law as discriminatory.

Question

Did an Oklahoma statute violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by establishing different drinking ages for men and women?

Conclusion

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

In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the statute made unconstitutional gender classifications. The Court held that the statistics relied on by the state of Oklahoma were insufficient to show a substantial relationship between the law and the maintenance of traffic safety. Generalities about the drinking habits of aggregate groups did not suffice. The Court also found that the Twenty-first Amendment did not alter the application of the Equal Protection Clause in the case.

Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety Comm'n

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-746

Petitioner

Atlas Roofing Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Occupational Safety Comm'n

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 75-748

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 442 (1977)

Argued

Monday, November 29, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, March 23, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Occupational Safety Comm'n, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 7: Seventh Amendment

None

Abney v. United States

Mon, 17 Jan 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-6521

Petitioner

Abney

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 651 (1977)

Argued

Monday, January 17, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 9, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Scarborough v. United States

Wed, 02 Mar 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1344

Petitioner

Scarborough

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 563 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, March 2, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets, National Firearms, Organized Crime Control, Comprehensive Crime Control, or Gun Control Acts, except for RICO (q.v.) portion

None

Farmer v. Carpenters

Mon, 08 Nov 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-804

Petitioner

Farmer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Carpenters

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 290 (1977)

Argued

Monday, November 8, 1976

Decided

Monday, March 7, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Farmer, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Kremens v. Bartley

Wed, 01 Dec 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1064

Appellee

Bartley

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Kremens

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 119 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, December 1, 1976

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Gardner v. Florida

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-6593

Petitioner

Gardner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 349 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, November 30, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, March 22, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Gardner, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Split Vote

None

Carey v. Population Services International

Mon, 10 Jan 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-443

Appellee

Population Services International

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Carey

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 678 (1977)

Argued

Monday, January 10, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 9, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Philadelphia v. New Jersey

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

Location

City of Philadelphia Philadelphia, PA 19107

United States

39° 57' 8.406" N, 75° 9' 49.6404" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1150

Appellant

City of Philadelphia et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

New Jersey et al.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 141 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, November 3, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1977

Advocates

Herbert F. Moore (argued the cause for the appellants)

Stephen Skillman (argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

A New Jersey statute prohibited the importation of solid or liquid waste into the state, except for garbage for swine feed. The City of Philadelphia challenged the statute, alleging it was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause of Article I and pre-empted by the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the statute. Congress then passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.

Question

(1) Does the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 pre-empt the New Jersey statute?

(2) Does the New Jersey's statute violate the Commerce Clause of Article I of the Constitution?

Conclusion

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

Perhaps and not addressed. In a 5-4 per curiam opinion, the Court held that the pre-emption question "should be resolved before the constitutional issue." Since that question "depends primarily on statutory and not constitutional interpretation" of the 1976 Act, the case was remanded to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

United States v. Antelope

Tue, 18 Jan 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-661

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Antelope

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 641 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, January 18, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, April 19, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Florida

Mon, 17 Jan 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

54 ORIG

Plaintiff

United States

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Florida

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 140 (1977)

Argued

Monday, January 17, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Wainwright v. Sykes

Tue, 29 Mar 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1578

Petitioner

Wainwright

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sykes

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 72 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, March 29, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 23, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Dothard v. Rawlinson

Tue, 19 Apr 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-422

Appellee

Rawlinson

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Dothard

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 321 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, April 19, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 27, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Dothard, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Belcher v. Stengel

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-823

Petitioner

Belcher

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stengel

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 118 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, November 2, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, November 30, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Estelle v. Gamble

Tue, 05 Oct 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-929

Petitioner

Estelle

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gamble

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 97 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, October 5, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, November 30, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Estelle, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

None

Electrical Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.

Tue, 09 Nov 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1264

Petitioner

Electrical Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Robbins & Myers, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 75-1276

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 229 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, November 9, 1976

Decided

Monday, December 20, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

NLRB v. Pipefitters

Wed, 06 Oct 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-777

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pipefitters

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 507 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, October 6, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, February 22, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Beal v. Doe

Tue, 11 Jan 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-554

Petitioner

Beal

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Doe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 438 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, January 11, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1977

Advocates

Judd F. Crosby (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Norman J. Watkins (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

In the wake of the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, abortion opponents turned to state and local legislators in an effort to curb the practice of abortion. This case involved a Pennsylvania law which restricted Medicaid-funded abortions only to indigent women in situations in which a doctor determined the procedure was medically necessary.

Question

Did Title XIX of the Social Security Act require states that participate in the Medicaid program to fund the cost of nontherapeutic abortions?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Beal, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Medicaid--provisions of the Social Security Act

No. The Court held that states could exclude nontherapeutic abortions from coverage under their Medicaid programs. Justice Powell argued that in its provisions, Title XIX of the Social Security Act made no specific reference to abortion nor did it require states to fund every medical procedure which could possibly fall under its umbrella. Powell made clear however that the federal statute did give states the option to fund therapeutic abortions if they chose to do so.

United States v. Washington

Mon, 06 Dec 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1106

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Washington

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 181 (1977)

Argued

Monday, December 6, 1976

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Moore v. East Cleveland

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

Location

East Cleveland City Hall

14340 Euclid Ave East Cleveland OH 44112

East Cleveland, OH 44112

United States

41° 31' 47.4384" N, 81° 34' 53.94" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-6289

Appellee

East Cleveland

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Moore

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 494 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, November 2, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1977

Facts of the Case

East Cleveland's housing ordinance limited occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family. Part of the ordinance was a strict definition of "family" which excluded Mrs. Inez Moore who lived with her son and two grandsons.

Question

Did the housing ordinance violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

The four justices in the plurality held that the ordinance violated Moore's rights as it constituted "intrusive regulation of the family" without accruing some tangible state interest. Justice Stevens joined in the judgment and argued that the ordinance was invalid because, by regulating who could live with Moore, it constituted a taking of property without just compensation.

Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC

Wed, 20 Apr 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-99

Petitioner

Occidental Life Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 355 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, April 20, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for EEOC, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Hankerson v. North Carolina

Wed, 23 Feb 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-6568

Petitioner

Hankerson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

North Carolina

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 233 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, February 23, 1977

Decided

Friday, June 17, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Hankerson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green

Tue, 18 Jan 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1753

Petitioner

Santa Fe Industries, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Green

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 462 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, January 18, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, March 23, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Santa Fe Industries, Inc., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Marks v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-708

Petitioner

Marks

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 188 (1977)

Argued

November 1-2, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, March 1, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Manson v. Brathwaite

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-871

Petitioner

Manson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brathwaite

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 98 (1977)

Argued

Monday, November 29, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 16, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United States

Mon, 04 Oct 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-235

Petitioner

G. M. Leasing Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 338 (1977)

Argued

Monday, October 4, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, January 12, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for G. M. Leasing Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

United States v. Consumer Life Ins. Co.

Mon, 06 Dec 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1221

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Consumer Life Ins. Co.

Consolidation

No. 75-1260

No. 75-1285

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 725 (1977)

Argued

Monday, December 6, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, April 26, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Consumer Life Ins. Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None