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

Darden v. Florida

Mon, 28 Mar 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-5382

Petitioner

Darden

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 704 (1977)

Argued

Monday, March 28, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, April 19, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Florida, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Ingraham v. Wright

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-6527

Petitioner

Ingraham

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wright

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 651 (1977)

Argued

November 2-3, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, April 19, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Madison Sch. Dist. v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Comm'n

Tue, 12 Oct 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-946

Appellee

Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Madison Sch. Dist.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 167 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, October 12, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, December 8, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Roberts v. Louisiana

Mon, 28 Mar 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-5206

Petitioner

Roberts

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 633 (1977)

Argued

Monday, March 28, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lefkowitz v. Cunningham

Mon, 28 Feb 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-260

Appellee

Cunningham

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lefkowitz

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 801 (1977)

Argued

February 28-March 1, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Cunningham, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Chappelle v. Greater Baton Rouge Airport Dist.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-352

Appellee

Greater Baton Rouge Airport Dist.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Chappelle

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 159 (1977)

Argued

Monday, April 25, 1977

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Dixon v. Love

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1513

Appellee

Love

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Dixon

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 105 (1977)

Argued

March 1-2, 1977

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Maness v. Wainwright

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-6909

Petitioner

Maness

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wainwright

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 550 (1977)

Argued

March 22-23, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, March 29, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Walsh v. Schlecht

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-906

Petitioner

Walsh

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Schlecht

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 401 (1977)

Argued

Monday, November 1, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, January 18, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Schlecht, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona

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

Location

Supreme Court of Arizona

1501 W. Washington Phoenix AZ 85007

Phoenix, AZ 85007

United States

33° 26' 51.3492" N, 112° 5' 32.946" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-316

Appellee

State Bar of Arizona

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Bates

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 350 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, January 18, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 27, 1977

Advocates

William C. Canby, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellants)

John P. Frank (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Daniel M. Friedman (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

In regulating the Arizona Bar, the Supreme Court of Arizona restricted advertising by attorneys. Bates was a partner in a law firm which sought to provide low-cost legal services to people of moderate income who did not qualify for public legal aid. Bates and his firm would only accept routine legal matters (many of which did not involve litigation) and depended on a large number of patrons given the low financial return from each client. In assessing their concept of legal services, Bates's firm decided that it would be necessary to advertise its availability and low fees.

Question

Did the Arizona rule, which restricted legal advertising, violate the freedom of speech of Bates and his firm as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

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

The Court found that the rule violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Blackmun argued that commercial speech does merit First Amendment protection given the important functions it serves in society, such as providing consumers with information about services and products, and helping to allocate resources in the American system of free-enterprise. The Court held that allowing attorneys to advertise would not harm the legal profession or the administration of justice, and, in fact, would supply consumers with valuable information about the availability and cost of legal services.

Castaneda v. Partida

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1552

Petitioner

Castaneda

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Partida

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 482 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, November 9, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, March 23, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Swain v. Pressley

Wed, 19 Jan 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-811

Petitioner

Swain

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pressley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 372 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, January 19, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, March 22, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Jeffers v. United States

Mon, 21 Mar 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1805

Petitioner

Jeffers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 137 (1977)

Argued

Monday, March 21, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 16, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Jeffers, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Ohio Bureau Of Employment Services v. Hodory

Mon, 28 Feb 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1707

Appellee

Hodory

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Ohio Bureau Of Employment Services

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 471 (1977)

Argued

Monday, February 28, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Ohio Bureau Of Employment Services, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Splawn v. California

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-143

Petitioner

Splawn

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 595 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, March 23, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ward v. Illinois

Wed, 27 Apr 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-415

Appellee

Illinois

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Ward

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 767 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, April 27, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 9, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Batterton v. Francis

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1181

Petitioner

Batterton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Francis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 416 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, April 19, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Batterton, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

United States v. Lovasco

Mon, 21 Mar 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1844

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lovasco

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 783 (1977)

Argued

March 21-22, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 9, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Larionoff

Wed, 27 Apr 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-413

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Larionoff

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 864 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, April 27, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Califano v. Goldfarb

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

Location

United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

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.

75-699

Appellant

Leon Goldfarb

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Joseph Califano, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 199 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, October 5, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, March 2, 1977

Advocates

Keith A. Jones (Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the appellant)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Leon Goldfarb was a widower who applied for survivor's benefits under the Social Security Act. Even though his wife Hannah had paid Social Security taxes for 25 years, his application was denied. To be eligible for benefits under 42 U.S.C. Section 402, he must have been receiving half his support from his wife at her time of death. Section 402 did not impose this requirement on widows whose husbands had recently passed away. Goldfarb challenged this statute under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The District Court ruled that the statute was unconstitutional. The Government appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question

Do the gender-based requirements for survivor's benefits in Section 402 violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Goldfarb, 4 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

Yes. In a 5-4 decision, the Court affirmed the District Court in holding the statute unconstitutional. Writing for a four-justice plurality, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. described this situation as "indistinguishable" from the one in Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, where a similar statute was invalidated. In this case, a female worker's family was less protected than the family of a male worker. The court rejected the "archaic and overbroad" generalizations that a wife is more likely to be dependent on her husband than a husband on his wife. These "old notions" of gender roles were not sufficient to justify the different treatment of widows and widowers, and which was therefore in violation of the Due Process Clause.

Continental T. V., Inc. v. Gte Sylvania Inc.

Mon, 28 Feb 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-15

Petitioner

Continental T. V., Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gte Sylvania Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 36 (1977)

Argued

Monday, February 28, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 23, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Gte Sylvania Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Poelker v. Doe

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-442

Petitioner

Poelker

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Doe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 519 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, January 11, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1977

Advocates

Frank Susman (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Eugene P. Freeman (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

A St. Louis policy prohibited non-therapeutic abortions in the city's two publicly run hospitals.

Question

Did the policy violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

No. The Court held that St. Louis could enact a "policy choice" to refuse to provide publicly financed hospitals for nontherapeutic abortions even though it provided facilities for childbirth. Relying on its reasoning in Maher v. Roe (1977), the Court distinguished between a state interfering with a protected activity and simply encouraging an alternative activity. Since the state did not deny women the right to have an abortion, the law was consistent with the Constitution.

United Jewish Org. of Williamsburgh v. Carey

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-104

Petitioner

United Jewish Org. of Williamsburgh

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Carey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 144 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, October 6, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, March 1, 1977

Advocates

George D. Zuckerman (Argued the cause the for respondents Carey et al)

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

Louis H. Pollak (Argued the cause for the respondents NAACP et al)

Nathan Lewin (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Congress provided in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act that reapportionment plans of several states were to be submitted to the U.S. attorney general or the District Court of the District of Columbia for approval. Several districts in New York were restructured to create districts with a minimum nonwhite majority of 65 percent. A Hasidic Jewish community was split in two by the reapportionment. The community claimed that the plan violated their constitutional rights because the districts had been assigned solely on a racial basis.

Question

Did the reapportionment plan violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment rights of the Hasidic community?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Carey, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

The Court found that the reapportionment plan was valid under the Constitution. Neither the Fourteenth nor the Fifteenth Amendment prohibit per se use of racial factors in districting and apportionment. Also, a reapportionment plan does not violate the same Amendments by using numerical quotas to establish a certain number of black majority districts. Although New York deliberately increased nonwhite majorities in several districts, there was no "fencing out" of the white population in the county from electoral participation. The reapportionment did not underrepresent the whites relative to their share of the population. The Court found that New York could use apportionment plans to attempt to prevent racial minorities from being repeatedly outvoted at the expense of the white populations.

Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-353

Petitioner

Piper

Respondent

Chris-Craft Industries

Consolidation

No. 75-354

No. 75-355

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 1 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, October 6, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Piper, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Smith v. Organization Of Foster Families

Mon, 21 Mar 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-180

Petitioner

Organization Of Foster Families

Respondent

Smith

Consolidation

No. 76-183

No. 76-5193

No. 76-5200

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 816 (1977)

Argued

Monday, March 21, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Briscoe v. Bell

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-60

Petitioner

Briscoe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 404 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, April 20, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Knebel v. Hein

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1261

Appellee

Hein

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Knebel

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 75-1355

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 288 (1977)

Argued

Monday, November 29, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, January 11, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Don E. Williams Co. v. Commissioner

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1312

Petitioner

Don E. Williams Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Commissioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 569 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, December 8, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, February 22, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Commissioner, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-567

Petitioner

State Land Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 75-577

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 363 (1977)

Argued

Monday, October 4, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, January 12, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for State Land Board, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Califano v. Webster

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:26:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-457

Appellee

Webster

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Califano

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 313 (1977)

Decided

Monday, March 21, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Third National Bank v. Impac Limited, Inc.

Tue, 26 Apr 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-674

Petitioner

Third National Bank

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Impac Limited, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 312 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, April 26, 1977

Decided

Friday, June 17, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Impac Limited, Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 91

None

United States v. Wong

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-635

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wong

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 174 (1977)

Argued

Monday, December 6, 1976

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Idaho Ex Rel. Andrus v. Oregon

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

67 ORIG

Plaintiff

Idaho Ex Rel. Andrus

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Oregon

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 163 (1976)

Argued

Monday, November 8, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, December 7, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Idaho Ex Rel. Andrus, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Moody v. Daggett

Tue, 12 Oct 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-6632

Petitioner

Moody

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Daggett

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 78 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, October 12, 1976

Decided

Monday, November 15, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Brewer v. Williams

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1263

Petitioner

Brewer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Williams

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 387 (1977)

Argued

Monday, October 4, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, March 23, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Williams, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Abood v. Detroit Board Of Education

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1153

Appellee

Detroit Board Of Education

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Abood

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 209 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, November 9, 1976

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. County Of Fresno

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1262

Appellee

County Of Fresno

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 452 (1977)

Argued

November 8-9, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, January 25, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for County Of Fresno, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Lockport v. Citizens For Community Action

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1157

Appellee

Citizens For Community Action

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lockport

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 259 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, November 30, 1976

Decided

Monday, March 7, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Connor v. Finch

Mon, 28 Feb 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-777

Petitioner

Finch

Respondent

Connor

Consolidation

Finch, Governor of Mississippi, et al. v. Connor et al., No. 76-933

United States v. Finch, Governor of Mississippi, et al., No. 76-934

Connor et al. v. Finch, Governor of Mississippi, et al., No. 76-935

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 407 (1977)

Argued

Monday, February 28, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1977

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States in No. 76-934)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Connor, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Ad. Comm.

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

Location

North Carolina Board of Agriculture

2 West Edenton Street Raleigh NC 27601

Raleigh, NC 27601

United States

35° 46' 53.8644" N, 78° 38' 22.3512" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-63

Appellee

Wash. State Apple Ad. Comm.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hunt

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 333 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, February 22, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1977

Advocates

John R. Jordan, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Slade Gorton (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

In 1972, the North Carolina Board of Agriculture adopted a regulation that required all apples shipped into the state in closed containers to display the USDA grade or nothing at all. Washington State growers(whose standards are higher than the USDA) challenged the regulation as an unreasonable burden to interstate commerce. North Carolina stated it was a valid exercise of its police powers to create "uniformity" to protect its citizenry from "fraud and deception."

Question

Did the North Carolina regulation violate the Commerce Clause by placing an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Wash. State Apple Ad. Comm., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

The Court voted unanimously that the North Carolina regulation was an unconstitutional exercise of the state's power over interstate commerce. Although the regulation was facially neutral, it had a discriminatory impact on the Washington growers while shielding the local growers from the same burden. The regulation removed the competitive advantage gained by the Washington apples from stricter inspection standards. The regulation produced a leveling effect that works to the local advantage by "downgrading" apples from other states unjustly. Therefore, the regulation places an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.

Commissioner v. Standard Life & Acc. Ins. Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1771

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Standard Life & Acc. Ins. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 148 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, March 30, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 23, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Commissioner, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 26 U.S.C. 801

None

Fiallo v. Bell

Tue, 07 Dec 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-6297

Appellee

Bell

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Fiallo

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 787 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, December 7, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, April 26, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Bell, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Henderson v. Kibbe

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1906

Petitioner

Henderson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kibbe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 145 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, March 1, 1977

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp.

Wed, 19 Jan 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-156

Petitioner

Vendo Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lektro-Vend Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 623 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, January 19, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, June 29, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Vendo Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2253

None

United States Trust Co. of NY v. New Jersey

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

Location

United States Trust Co. of New York

45 Wall Street New York NY 10005

New York, NY 10005

United States

40° 42' 22.6728" N, 74° 0' 35.4384" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1687

Appellee

New Jersey

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States Trust Co. of NY

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 1 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, November 10, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, April 27, 1977

Facts of the Case

New York and New Jersey had established a Port Authority to enhance water- bound business between the two states. In 1974, the states repealed a 1962 bond agreement which limited the Authority to administer commercial and passenger railroad subsidies.

Question

In repealing the 1962 agreement, did the states violate the Contract Clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for United States Trust Co. of NY, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 1: Contract Clause

The repeal violated the Constitution. Justice Blackmun argued that the states could have implemented a less drastic solution to encourage people to use commuter train services in lieu of driving their cars. (State leaders thought the increase in bridge fares that would occur with the agreement's repeal would cause this to occur.) Furthermore, since the need to facilitate mass transportation in the New York metropolitan area had been a concern long before 1962, the states could not justify their action as a response to unforeseen circumstances.

Mt. Healthy City Board Of Ed. v. Doyle

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1278

Petitioner

Mt. Healthy City Board Of Ed.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Doyle

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 274 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, November 3, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, January 11, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mt. Healthy City Board Of Ed., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment

None

Milliken v. Bradley

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

Location

Eastern District Court of Michigan

231 W. Lafayette Blvd Detroit MI 48226

Detroit, MI 48226

United States

42° 19' 49.3356" N, 83° 2' 58.2432" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-447

Petitioner

William G. Milliken, Governor of Michigan et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ronald Bradley et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 267 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, March 22, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 27, 1977

Advocates

Frank J. Kelley (Attorney General of Michigan, argued the cause for the petitioners)

Nathaniel R. Jones (argued the cause for the Bradley respondents)

George T. Roumell Jr. (argued the cause for the respondent, District Board of Education)

Facts of the Case

In _Milliken v. Bradley (1973) _, the Court ruled that an inter-district desegregation plan in the city of Detroit was impermissible and remanded the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The District Court ordered remedial education programs be instituted within the Detroit school district, and that the State of Michigan would bear half the costs of the remedial programs. The state of Michigan challenged the District Court order, which was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit.

Question

(1) Can a federal district court order remedial education programs for students who had been subjected to segregation?

(2) Can a federal district court order the state of Michigan to bear some of the costs of the remedial programs without violating Michigan's immunity from suit established by the Eleventh Amendment?

Conclusion

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

Yes and yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the District Court order, emphasizing "equitable principles" in the construction of desegregation plans set forth in Brown v. Board of Education (1955) _. The Court relied on _United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education in that "matters other than pupil assignment must on occasion be addressed by federal courts to eliminate the effects of prior segregation" and numerous lower court decisions providing for remedial programs. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger asserted that the District Court order "does no more than" what was accepted in Ex Parte Young. The burden to eliminate the effects of segregation rested on state officials, consistent with Swann v. Charlotte- Mecklenburg Board of Education. Therefore, the District Court's order did not violate the Eleventh Amendment. Justice Thurgood Marshall authored a concurring opinion. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. concurred in the judgment.

Patterson v. New York

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1861

Appellee

New York

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Patterson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 197 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, March 1, 1977

Decided

Friday, June 17, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bounds v. Smith

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-915

Petitioner

Bounds

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Smith

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 817 (1977)

Argued

Monday, November 1, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, April 27, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Blackledge v. Allison

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1693

Petitioner

Blackledge

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Allison

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 63 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, February 22, 1977

Decided

Monday, May 2, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Dayton Board Of Education v. Brinkman

Tue, 26 Apr 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-539

Petitioner

Dayton Board Of Education

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brinkman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 406 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, April 26, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 27, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Dayton Board Of Education, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Dobbert v. Florida

Mon, 28 Mar 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-5306

Petitioner

Dobbert

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 282 (1977)

Argued

Monday, March 28, 1977

Decided

Friday, June 17, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Florida, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3: Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Law

None

Epa v. Brown

Wed, 12 Jan 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-909

Petitioner

Epa

Respondent

Brown

Consolidation

No. 75-960

No. 75-1050

No. 75-1055

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 99 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, January 12, 1977

Decided

Monday, May 2, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Morris v. Gressette

Mon, 18 Apr 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1583

Appellee

Gressette

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Morris

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 491 (1977)

Argued

April 18-19, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Gressette, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

None

Brown v. Ohio

Mon, 21 Mar 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-6933

Petitioner

Brown

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ohio

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 161 (1977)

Argued

Monday, March 21, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 16, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Brown, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Shaffer v. Heitner

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1812

Appellee

Heitner

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Shaffer

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 186 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, February 22, 1977

Decided

Friday, June 24, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Shaffer, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

U.S. Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enterprises

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-853

Petitioner

U.S. Steel Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fortner Enterprises

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 610 (1977)

Argued

Monday, November 1, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, February 22, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for U.S. Steel Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-404

Petitioner

Illinois Brick Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 720 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, March 23, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 9, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Illinois Brick Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Parker Seal Co. v. Cummins

Tue, 12 Oct 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-478

Petitioner

Parker Seal Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cummins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 65 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, October 12, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, November 2, 1976

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-120

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Martin Linen Supply Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 564 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, February 23, 1977

Decided

Monday, April 4, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Martin Linen Supply Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Miree v. Dekalb County

Wed, 27 Apr 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-607

Petitioner

Miree

Respondent

Dekalb County

Consolidation

No. 76-659

No. 76-700

No. 76-722

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 25 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, April 27, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, June 21, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Trainor v. Hernandez

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1407

Appellee

Hernandez

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Trainor

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 434 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, January 18, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Trimble v. Gordon

Tue, 07 Dec 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Trimble's Residence Cook County, IL

United States

41° 44' 15.5724" N, 87° 41' 51.1944" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-5952

Appellee

Gordon

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Trimble

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 762 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, December 7, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, April 26, 1977

Facts of the Case

Section 12 of the Illinois Probate Act, while allowing legitimate children to inherit by intestate succession from either their mothers or fathers, allowed illegitimate children to inherit by intestate succession only from their mothers. Consequently, Deta Trimble, the illegitimate daughter of Sherman Gordon, was unable to inherit her father's estate when he died intestate. After losing her challenge to Section 12 in the Illinois Supreme Court, Trimble appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question

Did Section 12 of the Illinois Probate Act violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that Section 12 was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Applying the "rational relationship" test under the Clause, the Court emphasized that such a standard was not a "toothless" one. The Court then rejected the argument "that a State may attempt to influence the actions of men and women by imposing sanctions on the children born of their illegitimate relationships." The Court also noted that it was likely that Trimble would have inherited a substantial part of Gordon's estate had he written a will before his death.

Guam v. Olsen

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-439

Petitioner

Guam

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Olsen

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 195 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, March 29, 1977

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Olsen, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 48 U.S.C. 1424

None

Weatherford v. Bursey

Tue, 07 Dec 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1510

Petitioner

Weatherford

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bursey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 545 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, December 7, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, February 22, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Weatherford, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-577

Petitioner

Zacchini

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 562 (1977)

Argued

Monday, April 25, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, June 28, 1977

Advocates

Ezra K. Bryan (Argued the cause for the respondent)

John G. Lancione (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Hugo Zacchini performed a "human cannonball" act, in which he was shot from a cannon into a net 200 feet away. A free-lance reporter for Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. recorded the performance in its entirety without consent and it aired on the nightly news. Subsequently, Zacchini sued Scripps-Howard, alleging the unlawful appropriation of his professional property. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of Scripps-Howard. While recognizing that Zacchini had a cause of action for the infringement of his state-law right to publicity, the court found that Scripps-Howard was constitutionally privileged to include in its newscasts matters of public interest that would otherwise be protected by the right of publicity, absent an intent to injure or to appropriate for some nonprivileged purpose.

Question

Do the First and Fourteenth Amendments immunize the Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. from damages for its alleged infringement of an entertainer's state-law right of publicity?

Conclusion

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

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Byron R. White, the Court held that Scripps-Howard's constitutionally privileged free speech did not extend to broadcasting Zacchini's entire performance without his permission. Noting that Zacchini's interest in the case was similar to a patent or copyright, in which he was seeking to obtain the benefit of his work, the Court emphasized that the broadcast of an entire act was categorically different from reporting on an event in so far as it posed a substantial threat to the economic value of the performance. "Wherever the line in particular situations is to be drawn between media reports that are protected and those that are not, we are quite sure that the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not immunize the media when they broadcast a performer's entire act without his consent," wrote Justice White. Justice Louis F. Powell, Jr., joined by Justices William J. Brennan, Jr., and Thurgood Marshall, dissented, arguing that the recording was genuinely treated as news and as such Scripps-Howard was constitutionally privileged. Justice John Paul Stevens also dissented.

Jones v. Rath Packing Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1053

Petitioner

Jones

Respondent

Rath Packing Co.

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 519 (1977)

Argued

December 6-7, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, March 29, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Rath Packing Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 21 U.S.C. 601

None

Coker v. Georgia

Mon, 28 Mar 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-5444

Petitioner

Coker

Respondent

Georgia

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 584 (1977)

Argued

Monday, March 28, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, June 29, 1977

Advocates

David E. Kendall (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

B. Dean Grindle, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

In 1974, Erlich Anthony Coker, serving a number of sentences for murder, rape, kidnapping, and assault, escaped from prison. He broke into a Georgia couple's home, raped the woman and stole the family's car. The woman was released shortly thereafter, without further injuries. The Georgia courts sentenced Coker to death on the rape charge.

Question

Was the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of rape a form of cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the death penalty was a "grossly disproportionate" punishment for the crime of rape. The Court noted that nearly all states at that time declined to impose such a harsh penalty, with Georgia being the only state that authorized death for the rape of an adult woman. Because rape did not involve the taking of another human life, the Court found the death penalty excessive "in its severity and revocability."

Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1874

Appellee

North Carolina Prisoners' Union

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Jones

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 119 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, April 19, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 23, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Hazelwood School District v. United States

Wed, 27 Apr 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-255

Petitioner

Hazelwood School District

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 299 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, April 27, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 27, 1977

Advocates

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Hazelwood School District, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

United Airlines, Inc. v. Mcdonald

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-545

Petitioner

United Airlines, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mcdonald

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 385 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, March 29, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mcdonald, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Califano v. Sanders

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1443

Petitioner

Califano

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sanders

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 99 (1977)

Argued

January 11-12, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Califano, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Administrative Procedure, or Administrative Orders Review

None

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1126

Petitioner

Trans World Airlines, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hardison

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 75-1385

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 63 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, March 30, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 16, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Trans World Airlines, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo

Mon, 18 Apr 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-444

Petitioner

Northeast Marine Terminal Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Caputo

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 76-454

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 249 (1977)

Argued

Monday, April 18, 1977

Decided

Friday, June 17, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Caputo, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation

None

Lee v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-5187

Petitioner

Lee

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 23 (1977)

Argued

Monday, April 25, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Teamsters v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-636

Petitioner

Teamsters

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

T.I.M.E.-D.C., Inc. v. United States et al., No. 75-672

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 324 (1977)

Argued

Monday, January 10, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1977

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States et al. in both cases)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

National Socialist Party v. Skokie

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:26:05 +0000

Location

Skokie Village Hall

5127 Oakton Street

Skokie, IL 60077

United States

42° 1' 34.4568" N, 87° 45' 22.824" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1786

Petitioner

National Socialist Party

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Village of Skokie

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 43 (1977)

Granted

Tuesday, June 14, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, June 14, 1977

Facts of the Case

The village of Skokie, Illinois had a population of approximately 70,000 persons, of whom approximately 40,500 were Jewish. Included within this population were thousands who survived detention in Nazi concentration camps. On March 20, 1977, Frank Collin, the leader of the National Socialist (“Nazi”) Party of America, informed Skokie’s police chief that the National Socialists intended to march on the village’s sidewalk on May 1. As a result of media attention and a number of phone calls allegedly made by Nazi Party members to residents with “Jewish names”, this planned demonstration became common knowledge among Skokie’s Jewish community.

Collin wrote a letter to Skokie officials stating that the purpose of the demonstration was to protest the Skokie Park District’s ordinance requiring a bond of $350,000 to be posted prior to the issuance of a park permit. He also stated that the demonstration would consist of 30-50 demonstrators marching in single file in front of the Skokie Village Hall. The demonstrators intended to wear uniforms similar to those traditionally worn by Nazis, including swastika armbands. Collin also said that the demonstrators would not make derogatory public statements and would cooperate with reasonable police instructions.

The district court of Cook County conducted a hearing on a motion by the Village of Skokie for a preliminary injunction. The court considered Collin’s letter as an affidavit and took the testimony of a number of Skokie residents. One resident testified that a number of Jewish organizations planned a counterdemonstration for the same day with an expected attendance of 12,000 to 15,000 persons, and that the appearance of Nazi demonstrators could well lead to violence. The mayor of Skokie also testified that the demonstration could lead to uncontrollable violence. The court entered an order enjoining defendants from marching, walking, or parading or otherwise displaying the swastika on or off their person on May 1, 1977. The Nazi Party applied to the Illinois appellate court for a stay of the district court’s injunction; the appellate court denied their application. On appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court also denied the petition for a stay. The Nazi Party then filed an application for a stay with Justice John Paul Stevens, who referred the matter to the Court.

Question

Did the Illinois Supreme Court improperly deny the National Socialist Party’s request for a stay of the district court’s injunction?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that Illinois must provide strict procedural safeguards, including appellate review, to deny a stay for an injunction depriving the Nazi Party of protected First Amendment rights. The Court treated the Illinois Supreme Court’s denial of a stay as a final judgment for the purposes of Supreme Court jurisdiction because it involved a right separable from and collateral to the merits of the Nazi Party’s case. Hence, the Court also treated the Nazi Party’s application for a stay as a petition for certiorari. The Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Justice William Rehnquist, joined by Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justice Potter Stewart, dissented. He disagreed that the refusal of the Illinois Supreme Court to stay an injunction could be described as a final judgment or decree by the highest court of a state. He noted that no Illinois appellate court had heard or decided the merits of the Nazi Party’s federal claim.

Cook v. Hudson

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-503

Petitioner

Cook

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hudson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 165 (1976)

Argued

Monday, November 1, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, December 7, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Collins

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1870

Petitioner

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Collins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 75-1872

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 46 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, March 2, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 16, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 80

None

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Train

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-978

Petitioner

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Respondent

Train

Consolidation

No. 75-1473

No. 75-1705

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 112 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, December 8, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1977

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

United States v. Chadwick

Tue, 26 Apr 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1721

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chadwick

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 1 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, April 26, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, June 21, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Juidice v. Vail

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1397

Appellee

Vail

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Juidice

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 327 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, November 30, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, March 22, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Juidice, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Codd v. Velger

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-812

Petitioner

Codd

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Velger

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, December 1, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, February 22, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Whalen v. Roe

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-839

Appellee

Roe

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Whalen

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 589 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, October 13, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, February 22, 1977

Advocates

H. Miles Jaffe (Argued the cause for appellees Patient et al)

A. Seth Greenwald (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Michael Lesch (Argued the cause for appellees Roe et al)

Facts of the Case

In 1972, the state legislature enacted the New York State Controlled Substances Act. The Act required doctors to fill out forms for potentially harmful prescription drugs. The prescribing doctor kept one copy, while another copy was sent to the dispensing pharmacy and a third copy was sent to the state department of health. The forms included personal information such as the patient's name, address, and age.

Question

Did the reporting and record-keeping requirements violate the constitutional right to privacy embraced by the concept of liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

The Court held that the requirements of the Act did not on its face violate a "constitutionally protected 'zone of privacy.'" The Court found that the statutory scheme evidenced "a proper concern with, and protection of, the individual's interest in privacy" and that the "remote possibility" of potential abuses of data accumulation and disclosure were not sufficient to establish an invasion of any rights or liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Nyquist v. Mauclet

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-208

Appellee

Mauclet

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Nyquist

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 1 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, March 22, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Tully v. Griffin, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-831

Appellee

Griffin, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Tully

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 68 (1976)

Argued

Monday, October 4, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, November 9, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Griffin, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1341

None

Complete Auto Transit Inc. v. Brady

Wed, 19 Jan 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Complete Auto Transit Inc.

5550 Bircher Boulevard St. Louis MO 63120

St. Louis, MO 63120

United States

38° 41' 28.5324" N, 90° 15' 29.0664" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-29

Appellee

Brady

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Complete Auto Transit Inc.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 274 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, January 19, 1977

Decided

Monday, March 7, 1977

Advocates

Alan W. Perry (Argued the cause for the appellant)

James H. Haddock (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Complete Auto Transit was a Michigan corporation doing business in Mississippi. Complete shipped cars into the state where they were distributed for sale. Mississippi imposed a tax on transportation companies for the "privilege of doing business" in the state. The tax was applied equally to businesses involved in intra- and interstate commerce.

Question

Did the Mississippi tax violate the Commerce Clause because it placed a burden on an activity associated with interstate commerce?

Conclusion

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

A unanimous Court found the tax valid. Businesses involved in interstate commerce should assume a just share of the state tax burden. The Court's decision established four criteria to be met for a state tax to be valid and not an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. The tax must be (1) on an activity connected to the state, (2) fairly apportioned to be based on intrastate commerce, (3) nondiscriminatory, and (4) related to state services provided. These criteria are only valid if Congress has not imposed conflicting regulations.

Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1255

Appellee

Seacoast Products, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Douglas

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 265 (1977)

Argued

Monday, January 17, 1977

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Jones v. Hildebrant

Tue, 26 Apr 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-5416

Petitioner

Jones

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hildebrant

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 183 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, April 26, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 16, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-333

Petitioner

United Air Lines, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Evans

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 553 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, March 29, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United Air Lines, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-904

Petitioner

Brunswick Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 477 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, November 3, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, January 25, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Brunswick Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip

Wed, 12 Jan 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-562

Petitioner

Rosebud Sioux Tribe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kneip

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 584 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, January 12, 1977

Decided

Monday, April 4, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Kneip, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 36 Stat. 448

None

Puyallup Tribe v. Washington Game Dept.

Mon, 18 Apr 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-423

Petitioner

Puyallup Tribe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Washington Game Dept.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 165 (1977)

Argued

Monday, April 18, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 23, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Puyallup Tribe, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 10 Stat. 1132

None

Scott v. Kentucky Parole Board

Tue, 12 Oct 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-6438

Petitioner

Scott

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kentucky Parole Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 60 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, October 12, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, November 2, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None