Cases - 1977 term

Mcadams v. Mcsurely

Wed, 01 Mar 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1621

Petitioner

Mcadams

Respondent

Mcsurely

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

438 U.S. 189 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, March 1, 1978

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co.

Wed, 19 Apr 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-693

Petitioner

Will

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Calvert Fire Ins. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 655 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, April 19, 1978

Decided

Friday, June 23, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Scott v. United States

Wed, 01 Mar 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-6767

Petitioner

Scott

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 128 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, March 1, 1978

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets, National Firearms, Organized Crime Control, Comprehensive Crime Control, or Gun Control Acts, except for RICO (q.v.) portion

None

United States v. Ceccolini

Mon, 05 Dec 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1151

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ceccolini

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 268 (1978)

Argued

Monday, December 5, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, March 21, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Exclusionary Rule (admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment)

None

United Air Lines, Inc. v. Mcmann

Tue, 04 Oct 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-906

Petitioner

United Air Lines, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mcmann

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 192 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, October 4, 1977

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United Air Lines, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Age Discrimination in Employment (ADEA)

None

Zurcher v. The Stanford Daily

Tue, 17 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1484

Petitioner

Zurcher

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

The Stanford Daily

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 76-1600

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 547 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, January 17, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, May 31, 1978

Advocates

W. Eric Collins (Argued the cause for the petitioners in the related case, Bergna v. Stanford Daily)

Robert K. Booth, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioners in Zurcher v. Stanford Daily)

Jerome B. Falk, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondent in both cases)

Facts of the Case

In 1971, officers of the Palo Alto, California, Police Department obtained a warrant to search the main office of The Stanford Daily, the student newspaper at the university. It was believed that The Stanford Daily had pictures of a violent clash between a group of protesters and the police; the pictures were needed to identify the assailants. The officers searched The Daily's photographic laboratories, filing cabinets, desks, and waste paper baskets, but no materials were removed from the office. This case was decided together with Bergna v. Stanford Daily, involving the district attorney and a deputy district attorney who participated in the obtaining of the search warrant.

Question

Did the search of The Daily's newsroom violate the First and Fourth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Zurcher, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that the "third party" search of the newsroom did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that such searches, accompanied by warrants, were legitimate when it had been "satisfactorily demonstrated to the magistrate that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime is located on the premises." The Court also found that the Framers of the Constitution "did not forbid warrants where the press was involved."

Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-911

Petitioner

Adamo Wrecking Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 275 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, October 11, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, January 10, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Adamo Wrecking Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clean Air

None

Michigan v. Tyler

Tue, 10 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1608

Petitioner

Michigan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tyler

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 499 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, January 10, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, May 31, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Tyler, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia

Wed, 11 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission

100 N 9th St Richmond VA 23219

Richmond, VA 23219

United States

37° 32' 20.6808" N, 77° 26' 7.8216" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1450

Appellant

Landmark Communications Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Virginia

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 829 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1978

Decided

Monday, May 1, 1978

Advocates

Floyd Abrams (argued the cause for the appellant)

James E. Kulp (argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

A Landmark Communications newspaper, The Virginian Pilot, published an article regarding the Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission's investigation into a state judge. The article, which was accurate, violated a Virginia law that prohibited the release of information from Commission hearings. Landmark was indicted by a grand jury, had its motion to dismiss denied by the trial court, convicted without a jury trial and fined. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed Landmark's conviction.

Question

Did the criminal punishment of Landmark for disclosing information from the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission's hearing violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Landmark Communications, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. The Court ruled 7-0 reversing the Supreme Court of Virginia. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger authored the majority opinion. Speaking for six members of the Court, Burger recognized the need for confidentiality in the Commission's proceedings. However, the disclosure of information from the Commission hearing by the Pilot served a public interest consistent with New York Times v. Sullivan. Therefore, the state interest did not "justify encroaching on First Amendment guarantees" in the form of the criminal punishment. Justice Potter Stewart wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment.

Quilloin v. Walcott

Wed, 09 Nov 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-6372

Appellee

Walcott

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Quilloin

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 246 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, November 9, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, January 10, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-39

Petitioner

Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Craft

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 1 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, November 2, 1977

Decided

Monday, May 1, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham

Tue, 10 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1726

Petitioner

Mobil Oil Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Higginbotham

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 618 (1978)

Argued

January 10-11, 1978

Decided

Monday, June 5, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mobil Oil Corp., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 46 U.S.C. 762

None

Swisher v. Brady

Wed, 29 Mar 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-653

Appellee

Brady

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Swisher

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

438 U.S. 204 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, March 29, 1978

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Carey v. Piphus

Tue, 06 Dec 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1149

Petitioner

Carey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Piphus

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 247 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, March 21, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Foley v. Connelie

Tue, 08 Nov 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Location

New York State Police

1220 Washington Avenue Albany NY 12226

Albany, NY 12226

United States

42° 40' 49.2564" N, 73° 48' 37.4724" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-839

Appellee

Connelie

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Foley

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 291 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, November 8, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, March 22, 1978

Facts of the Case

Edmund Foley applied for a position as a New York state trooper. Although Foley was a legally admitted resident alien, state officials refused to permit him to take the examination. New York authorities relied on a statute providing that "no person shall be appointed to the. . .state police force unless he shall be a citizen of the United States."

Question

Did the New York law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the states had an "historical power to exclude aliens from participation in its democratic political institutions" and that the New York statute did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that states need only to show some rational relationship between a valid state interest and a classification involving aliens, the Court held that the police function was "one of the basic functions of government" and thereby the province of actual United States citizens.

FCC v. Pacifica Foundation

Tue, 18 Apr 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Location

WBAI Station

"120 Wall Street**** 10th Floor" New York NY 10005

New York, NY 10005

United States

40° 42' 17.4672" N, 74° 0' 21.4884" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-528

Petitioner

Federal Communications Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pacifica Foundation

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

438 U.S. 726 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, April 18, 1978

Decided

Monday, July 3, 1978

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (Argued the cause for the United States, a respondent under this Court's Rule 21 (4))

Joseph A. Marino (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Harry M. Plotkin (Argued the cause for respondent Pacifica Foundation)

Facts of the Case

During a mid-afternoon weekly broadcast, a New York radio station aired George Carlin's monologue, "Filthy Words." Carlin spoke of the words that could not be said on the public airwaves. His list included shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits. The station warned listeners that the monologue included "sensitive language which might be regarded as offensive to some." The FCC received a complaint from a man who stated that he had heard the broadcast while driving with his young son.

Question

Does the First Amendment deny government any power to restrict the public broadcast of indecent language under any circumstances?

Conclusion

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

No. The Court held that limited civil sanctions could constitutionally be invoked against a radio broadcast of patently offensive words dealing with sex and execration. The words need not be obscene to warrant sanctions. Audience, medium, time of day, and method of transmission are relevant factors in determining whether to invoke sanctions. "[W]hen the Commission finds that a pig has entered the parlor, the exercise of its regulatory power does not depend on proof that the pig is obscene."

Washington Rev. Dept. v. Stevedoring Assn.

Mon, 16 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1706

Petitioner

Washington Rev. Dept.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stevedoring Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 734 (1978)

Argued

January 16-17, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, April 26, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Washington Rev. Dept., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Houchins v. KQED Inc.

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

Location

Alameda County Sheriff's Office

1401 Lakeside Drive Oakland CA 94612

Oakland, CA 94612

United States

37° 48' 5.13" N, 122° 15' 47.142" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1310

Petitioner

Houchins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

KQED Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

438 U.S. 1 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, November 29, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1978

Advocates

Kelvin H. Booty, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

William Bennett Turner (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

KQED Inc., owner of a number of licensed television and radio broadcasting stations, requested permission to inspect and take pictures of the Alameda County Jail at Santa Rita. KQED sought to investigate a recent suicide that had occurred at the facility. Houchins, the Sheriff of Alameda County, denied access to the media.

Question

Did the First Amendment guarantee news media a right of access to jails over and above that of other persons?

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Houchins, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

No. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Burger, the Court held that the First Amendment granted no special right of access to the press to government- controlled sources of information. The Court reasoned that the importance of acceptable prison conditions and the media's role of providing information afforded "no basis for reading into the Constitution a right of the public or the media to enter these institutions. . .and take moving and still pictures of inmates for broadcast purposes."

Greyhound Corp. v. Mt. Hood Stages, Inc.

Mon, 24 Apr 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-598

Petitioner

Greyhound Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mt. Hood Stages, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 322 (1978)

Argued

Monday, April 24, 1978

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Vitek v. Jones

Mon, 24 Apr 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-888

Appellee

Jones

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Vitek

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 407 (1978)

Argued

Monday, April 24, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, May 23, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Parker v. Flook

Tue, 25 Apr 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-642

Petitioner

Parker

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Flook

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 584 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, April 25, 1978

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1978

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Parker, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 35 U.S.C. 101

None

Franks v. Delaware

Mon, 27 Feb 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-5176

Petitioner

Franks

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Delaware

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

438 U.S. 154 (1978)

Argued

Monday, February 27, 1978

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Bair

Tue, 21 Mar 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-454

Appellee

Bair

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Moorman Mfg. Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 267 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, March 21, 1978

Decided

Thursday, June 15, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Sanabria v. United States

Tue, 08 Nov 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1040

Petitioner

Sanabria

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 54 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, November 8, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, June 14, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Sanabria, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1359

Petitioner

Bankers Trust Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mallis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 381 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, November 30, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, March 28, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

New York v. Cathedral Academy

Mon, 03 Oct 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-616

Appellee

Cathedral Academy

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

New York

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 125 (1977)

Argued

Monday, October 3, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, December 6, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Wise v. Lipscomb

Tue, 25 Apr 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-529

Petitioner

Wise

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lipscomb

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 535 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, April 25, 1978

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1383

Petitioner

Christiansburg Garment 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

434 U.S. 412 (1978)

Argued

November 28-29, 1977

Decided

Monday, January 23, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for EEOC, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

United States v. Scott

Tue, 21 Feb 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1382

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Scott

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 82 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, February 21, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 14, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Barry

Mon, 27 Mar 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-240

Petitioner

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Barry

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

438 U.S. 531 (1978)

Argued

Monday, March 27, 1978

Decided

Thursday, June 29, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Barry, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 1011

None

United States v. Jacobs

Wed, 07 Dec 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1193

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jacobs

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 31 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, December 7, 1977

Reargued:

Monday, March 20, 1978

Decided

Monday, May 1, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Fmc v. Pacific Maritime Assn.

Wed, 07 Dec 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-938

Petitioner

Fmc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pacific Maritime Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 40 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, December 7, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, March 1, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Fmc, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 46 U.S.C. 814

None

Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB

Mon, 24 Apr 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-152

Petitioner

Beth Israel Hospital

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 483 (1978)

Argued

Monday, April 24, 1978

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1978

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

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-419

Petitioner

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Natural Resources Defense Council

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Consumers Power Co. v. Aeschliman et al., No. 76-528

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 519 (1978)

Argued

Monday, November 28, 1977

Decided

Monday, April 3, 1978

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the federal respondents in support of petitioners in both cases pursuant to this Court's Rule 21 (4))

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Administrative Procedure, or Administrative Orders Review

None

Parham v. J. R.

Tue, 06 Dec 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1690

Appellee

J. R.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Parham

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 584 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1977

Reargued:

Tuesday, October 10, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 20, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

American Broadcasting Cos. v. Writers Guild

Mon, 05 Dec 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1121

Petitioner

American Broadcasting Cos.

Respondent

Writers Guild

Consolidation

No. 76-1153

No. 76-1162

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 411 (1978)

Argued

Monday, December 5, 1977

Reargued:

Monday, March 20, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 21, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for American Broadcasting Cos., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Monell v. New York City Dept. Of Social Services

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1914

Petitioner

Monell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York City Dept. Of Social Services

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 658 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, November 2, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, June 6, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Monell, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Carpenters

Mon, 07 Nov 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-750

Petitioner

Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Carpenters

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 180 (1978)

Argued

Monday, November 7, 1977

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

In Re Primus

Mon, 16 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-56

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

In Re Primus

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 412 (1978)

Argued

Monday, January 16, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, May 30, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for In Re Primus, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

None

Commissioner v. Kowalski

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1095

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kowalski

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 77 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, October 12, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, November 29, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters

Mon, 17 Apr 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-369

Petitioner

Furnco Construction Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Waters

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

438 U.S. 567 (1978)

Argued

Monday, April 17, 1978

Decided

Thursday, June 29, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.

Mon, 09 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1143

Appellee

Barlow's, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Marshall

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 307 (1978)

Argued

Monday, January 9, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, May 23, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Barlow's, Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Elkins v. Moreno

Wed, 22 Feb 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-154

Petitioner

Elkins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Moreno

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 647 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, February 22, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, April 19, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Elkins, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks

Wed, 18 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-25

Petitioner

Flagg Bros., Inc.

Respondent

Brooks

Consolidation

No. 77-37

No. 77-42

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 149 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, January 18, 1978

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Flagg Bros., Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Frank Lyon Co. v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-624

Petitioner

Frank Lyon Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 561 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, November 2, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, April 18, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Frank Lyon Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Ballew v. Georgia

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

Location

Criminal Court of Fulton County

"160 Pryor Street**** S.W." Atlanta GA 30303

Atlanta, GA 30303

United States

33° 45' 1.368" N, 84° 23' 37.0536" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-761

Petitioner

Ballew

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Georgia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 223 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, November 1, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, March 21, 1978

Facts of the Case

Ballew was found in violation of a misdemeanor for exhibiting an obscene motion picture film. In the Criminal Court of Fulton County, a jury of five persons was selected and sworn to hear the case.

Question

Does a state criminal trial by a jury of only five persons deprive the accused of the right to a trial by jury as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Ballew, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Trial By Jury

Yes. The Court found that a trial by jury of less than six members violated the accused's right to a trial by jury as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Blackmun reasoned that small juries foster poor group deliberation. Group memory of the details of testimony, the ease with which group compromises can be made, and the desire of the group to be self- critical and reflective are all hindered as the size of the jury decreases. Blackmun also relied on statistical studies to claim that the risk of jury error increased with smaller juries.

Arizona v. Washington

Mon, 31 Oct 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1168

Petitioner

Arizona

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Washington

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 497 (1978)

Argued

Monday, October 31, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, February 21, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

National Broiler Marketing Assn. v. U.S.

Tue, 21 Feb 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-117

Petitioner

National Broiler Marketing Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 816 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, February 21, 1978

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for U.S., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 7 U.S.C. 291

None

Baldwin v. Fish & Game Commission of Montana

Wed, 05 Oct 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Fish and Game Commission of Montana

1420 East Sixth Avenue Helena MT 59620

Helena, MT 59620

United States

46° 35' 12.7104" N, 112° 0' 54.9" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1150

Appellee

Fish & Game Commission of Montana

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Baldwin

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 371 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, October 5, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, May 23, 1978

Advocates

James H. Goetz (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Paul A. Lenzini (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

In its licensing system for elk-hunters, the state of Montana required nonresidents to pay a substantially higher fee than residents for a hunting permit.

Question

Did the Montana law violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution as delineated in Article IV, Section 2?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Fish & Game Commission of Montana, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Privileges and Immunities Clause

The Court affirmed the right of Montana to charge higher fees for out-of-state elk hunters. Justice Blackmun found that the Privileges and Immunities Clause only applied to activities which bear "on the vitality of the Nation as a single entity." Since elk hunting is a recreational activity and not fundamental to the survival of nonresidents of Montana, Blackmun argued that it did not fall within the scope of the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. "Equality in access to Montana elk is not basic to the maintenance or well-being of the Union," he concluded.

Slodov v. United States

Wed, 22 Feb 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1835

Petitioner

Slodov

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 238 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, February 22, 1978

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.

Tue, 08 Nov 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-944

Petitioner

Nixon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Warner Communications, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 589 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, November 8, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, April 18, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Nixon, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 44 U.S.C. 2107

None

Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus

Tue, 25 Apr 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Allied Structural Steel Company: Industrial Construction Division

9216 Grand Avenue South Minneapolis MN 54420

Minneapolis, MN 54420

United States

44° 50' 10.6692" N, 93° 17' 10.0356" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-747

Appellee

Spannaus

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Allied Structural Steel Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

438 U.S. 234 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, April 25, 1978

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1978

Advocates

George B. Christensen (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Byron E. Starns (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

In 1974, Minnesota adopted legislation which required private employers to pay a fee if they terminated employee pension plans or if they moved their offices from the state, leaving insufficient funds to cover pensions for ten-year employees. This law affected Allied Structural Steel as the company began closing offices in Minnesota. Even though the employees affected by the closing were not entitled to pensions under the terms of their employment with the company, according to the Minnesota law, they were. The company was ordered to pay approximately $185,000 to comply with the statute's provisions.

Question

Did Minnesota's Private Pension Benefits Protection Act violate the Contract Clause of the Constitution?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Allied Structural Steel Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 1: Contract Clause

The Court found that the Minnesota law did violate the Constitution as it "substantially altered" the provisions of pension agreements which Allied Steel had with its employees. Citing the importance that the Framers placed on private contracts in the conduct of business, Justice Stewart found that the act's effect was "severe" as it nullified terms of t he company's obligations to its employees and imposed an "unexpected liability in potentially disabling amounts." Furthermore, the law was narrowly targeted at employers who had decided to establish employee pension plans, and it did not seek to deal with broad economic and social problems.

First Federal S. & L. v. Massachusetts Tax Comm'n

Tue, 21 Mar 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-334

Appellee

Massachusetts Tax Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

First Federal S. & L.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 255 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, March 21, 1978

Decided

Thursday, June 15, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Massachusetts Tax Comm'n, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 1464

None

Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger

Tue, 18 Apr 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-677

Petitioner

Owen Equipment & Erection Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kroger

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 365 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, April 18, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 21, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Owen Equipment & Erection Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1332

None

Malone v. White Motor Corp.

Tue, 10 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1184

Appellee

White Motor Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Malone

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 497 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, January 10, 1978

Decided

Monday, April 3, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Malone, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Durst v. United States

Mon, 05 Dec 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-5935

Petitioner

Durst

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 542 (1978)

Argued

Monday, December 5, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, February 22, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 5005

None

Quern v. Mandley

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1159

Petitioner

Quern

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mandley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 76-1416

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 725 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, November 30, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, June 6, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Quern, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Nashville Gas Co. v. Satty

Wed, 05 Oct 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-536

Petitioner

Nashville Gas Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Satty

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 136 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, October 5, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, December 6, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Central Illinois Public Serv. Co. v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1058

Petitioner

Central Illinois Public Serv. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 21 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, October 12, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, February 28, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Central Illinois Public Serv. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Holloway v. Arkansas

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-5856

Petitioner

Holloway

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arkansas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 475 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, November 2, 1977

Decided

Monday, April 3, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. California

Mon, 27 Feb 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Channel Islands National Park CA

United States

33° 56' 57.0912" N, 120° 2' 36.2832" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

5 ORIG

Plaintiff

United States

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

California

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 32 (1978)

Argued

Monday, February 27, 1978

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1978

Advocates

Allan A. Ryan, Jr. (argued the cause for the United States)

Russell Iungerich (argued the cause for California)

Facts of the Case

Channel Islands National Monument is a nationally designated area off the coast of California, including Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands. In 1949, President Harry S Truman issued a proclamation that extended the boundary of the National Monument within one nautical mile of the islands.

Question

Does California have jurisdiction over the submerged lands and waters under the Submerged Lands Act of 1953?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for California, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Submerged Lands Acts

Yes. Writing for the majority, Justice Potter Stewart determined that under the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 after the 1947 United States v. California decision, Congress specified that the lands in dispute were under California's control.

Hicklin v. Orbeck

Tue, 21 Mar 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-324

Appellee

Orbeck

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hicklin

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 518 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, March 21, 1978

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1978

Facts of the Case

In 1972, the Alaska Legislature passed the Local Hire Under State Leases Act which required "all oil and gas leases [and other activities related to this industry] to which the state is a party" include provisions for the preferential hiring of Alaska residents over non-residents. To administer the law, residents were issued residency cards which they were to present to potential employers when seeking jobs. Hicklin and others did not qualify for employment under the Alaska residency standard.

Question

Did the Alaska statute violate the Constitution's Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hicklin, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

The unanimous Court held that the Alaska Local Hire Act violated the Constitution. Citing past decisions of the Court, Justice Brennan argued that the Alaska law did not meet the strict standard of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, namely, that discrimination against non-citizens of a state is only allowed when those non-citizens "constitute a peculiar source of evil at which the statute is aimed." Since no evidence indicated that non-residents were the major cause of state unemployment or any other evil, there was no justification for the law.

Pennsylvania v. Mimms

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:43:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1830

Petitioner

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Harry Mimms

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 106 (1977)

Decided

Monday, December 5, 1977

Facts of the Case

This case arose when two Philadelphia police officers pulled over the defendant, Harry Mimms, for driving with an expired license plate. After asking Mimms to exit the car, the officers noticed an unusual bulge underneath his jacket. One of the officers searched Mimms and discovered a loaded .38-caliber revolver. Mimms was charged with carrying a concealed deadly weapon and unlawfully carrying a firearm without a license. He was convicted on both counts at trial after his motion to suppress the revolver was denied.

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the officers' request for Mimms to exit the vehicle was an unlawful "seizure" in violation of the Fourth Amendment. According to the court, the officer could not point to any "objective observable facts to support a suspicion that criminal activity was afoot or that the occupants of the vehicle posed a threat to police safety" sufficient to warrant ordering Mimms to step out of the car. Therefore, the officers should never have noticed the bulge and the search should never have taken place.

Question

Do police officers violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures when, during a routine traffic stop, they obtain evidence through a search conducted after asking the suspect to exit the vehicle without a justifiable reason to do so?

Conclusion

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

No. In a 6-3 per curiam decision, the Court held that the search did not violate Mimms' rights under the Fourth Amendment. The Court noted that the officers had already detained Mimms in order to issue him a traffic summons and felt that asking him to exit the vehicle was a minimal and reasonable intrusion of his freedom. Whether the search occurred inside or outside the car was irrelevant to the Court: the officers had stopped Mimms for a legitimate reason and, upon observing the bulge in his jacket, any person of reasonable caution would have conducted the search.

Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that such searches, in order to conform to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, must relate to the reason for the stop. Because the officers had detained Mimms for an expired license plate, searching him for concealed weapons was not within the scope of the stop and therefore made it an unlawful search. Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, filed a separate dissent arguing that the majority opinion gave too much discretion to police officers, allowing them to search detainees whenever they could invent any basis for concern.

Shell Oil Co. v. Dartt

Mon, 07 Nov 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-678

Petitioner

Shell Oil Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dartt

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 99 (1977)

Argued

Monday, November 7, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, November 29, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Kulko v. California Superior Court

Wed, 29 Mar 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-293

Appellee

California Superior Court

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Kulko

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 84 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, March 29, 1978

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Pinkus v. United States

Tue, 28 Feb 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-39

Petitioner

Pinkus

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 293 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, February 28, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, May 23, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. New York Telephone Co.

Mon, 03 Oct 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-835

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York Telephone Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 159 (1977)

Argued

Monday, October 3, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, December 7, 1977

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States and was on the brief as Acting Solicitor General)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets, National Firearms, Organized Crime Control, Comprehensive Crime Control, or Gun Control Acts, except for RICO (q.v.) portion

None

Procunier v. Navarette

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-446

Petitioner

Procunier

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Navarette

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 555 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, October 11, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, February 22, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Procunier, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States

Tue, 25 Apr 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-539

Petitioner

Zenith Radio Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 443 (1978)

Argued

April 25-26, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 21, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 19 U.S.C. 1303

None

Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.

Tue, 04 Oct 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-864

Petitioner

Lafayette

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana Power & Light Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 389 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, October 4, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, March 29, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Louisiana Power & Light Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Taylor v. Kentucky

Mon, 27 Mar 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-5549

Petitioner

Taylor

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kentucky

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 478 (1978)

Argued

Monday, March 27, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, May 30, 1978

Advocates

J. Vincent Aprile, II (argued the cause for the petitioner)

Guy C. Shearer (argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Mauro

Mon, 27 Feb 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1596

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mauro

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 77-52

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 340 (1978)

Argued

Monday, February 27, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, May 23, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. App.

None

United States v. Lasalle National Bank

Wed, 29 Mar 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-365

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lasalle National Bank

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 298 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, March 29, 1978

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1978

Advocates

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lorillard v. Pons

Tue, 06 Dec 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1346

Petitioner

Lorillard

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pons

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 575 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, February 22, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Pons, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Age Discrimination in Employment (ADEA)

None

Philadelphia v. New Jersey

Mon, 27 Mar 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Location

New Jersey State Legislature

25 W State St Trenton NJ 08608

Trenton, NJ 08608

United States

40° 13' 13.5192" N, 74° 46' 1.3224" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-404

Petitioner

New Jersey

Respondent

Philadelphia

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 617 (1978)

Argued

Monday, March 27, 1978

Decided

Friday, June 23, 1978

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 law prohibited the importation of most "solid or liquid waste which originated or was collected outside the territorial limits of the State."

Question

Did New Jersey's waste importation law violate the Commerce Clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Philadelphia, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

Yes. The Court held that the law violated the principle of nondiscrimination as it treated out-of-state waste differently than waste produced within the state. Since New Jersey could not demonstrate a legitimate reason for distinguishing between foreign and domestically produced waste, it was clear to the Court that the state had "overtly moved to slow or freeze the flow of commerce for protectionist reasons."

Agosto v. Ins

Tue, 28 Feb 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1410

Petitioner

Agosto

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 748 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, February 28, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, June 6, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Agosto, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Stump v. Sparkman

Tue, 10 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1750

Petitioner

Stump

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sparkman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 349 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, January 10, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, March 28, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Fulman v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1137

Petitioner

Fulman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 528 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, November 29, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, February 22, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Raymond Motor Transportation, Inc. v. Rice

Tue, 08 Nov 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-558

Appellee

Rice

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Raymond Motor Transportation, Inc.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 429 (1978)

Argued

November 8-9, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, February 21, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Raymond Motor Transportation, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Carter v. Miller

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1171

Petitioner

Carter

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Miller

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 356 (1978)

Argued

November 29-30, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, January 17, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.

Wed, 26 Apr 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-911

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 214 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, April 26, 1978

Decided

Thursday, June 15, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for NLRB, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Lockett v. Ohio

Tue, 17 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Pawn Shop

42 East Market Street Akron OH 44308

Akron, OH 44308

United States

41° 5' 5.8992" N, 81° 30' 58.572" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-6997

Petitioner

Lockett

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ohio

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

438 U.S. 586 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, January 17, 1978

Decided

Monday, July 3, 1978

Advocates

Carl M. Layman, III (Argued the cause for the respondent)

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

Facts of the Case

An Ohio law required that individuals found guilty of aggravated murder be given the death penalty. The death penalty was mandatory unless: 1) the victim had induced the offense, 2) the offense was committed under duress or coercion, or 3) the offense was a product of mental deficiencies. Sandra Lockett, who had encouraged and driven the getaway car for a robbery that resulted in the murder of a pawnshop owner, was found guilty under the statute and sentenced to death.

Question

Did the Ohio law violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by limiting the consideration of mitigating factors?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Lockett, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Yes. The Court held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments required, in all but the rarest capital cases, that sentencers not be precluded from considering a range of mitigating factors before imposing the death penalty. These factors included any aspect of a defendant's character or record and any circumstances of the offense proffered as a reason for a sentence less than death. The Court held that the Ohio statute did not permit the type of individualized consideration of mitigating factors required by the Constitution.

J. W. Bateson Co. v. Board Of Trustees

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1476

Petitioner

J. W. Bateson Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Board Of Trustees

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 586 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, November 30, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, February 22, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for J. W. Bateson Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miller

None

Richmond Unified School District v. Berg

Wed, 05 Oct 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1069

Petitioner

Richmond Unified School District

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Berg

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 158 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, October 5, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, December 6, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Califano v. Jobst

Tue, 04 Oct 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-860

Appellee

Jobst

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Califano

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 47 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, October 4, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, November 8, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

First National Bank Of Boston v. Bellotti

Wed, 09 Nov 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1172

Appellee

Bellotti

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

First National Bank Of Boston

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 765 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, November 9, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, April 26, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for First National Bank Of Boston, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Key v. Doyle

Wed, 05 Oct 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1057

Appellee

Doyle

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Key

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 59 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, October 5, 1977

Decided

Monday, November 14, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Doyle, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

None

Robertson v. Wegmann

Tue, 21 Mar 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-178

Petitioner

Robertson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wegmann

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 584 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, March 21, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, May 31, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

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

Location

University of California Medical School at Davis

4610 X Street Sacramento CA 95817

Sacramento, CA 95817

United States

38° 33' 10.7784" N, 121° 27' 8.7696" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-811

Petitioner

Regents of the University of California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bakke

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

438 U.S. 265 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, October 12, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1978

Advocates

Reynold H. Colvin (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Archibald Cox (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Wade H. McCree (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times. The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, in an effort to redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's applications were rejected. Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race.

Question

Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?

Conclusion

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

Split Vote

No and yes. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.

United States v. Grayson

Wed, 22 Feb 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1572

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Grayson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

438 U.S. 41 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, February 22, 1978

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co.

Tue, 18 Apr 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-380

Petitioner

Andrus

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Charlestone Stone Products Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 604 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, April 18, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, May 31, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Andrus, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 30 U.S.C. 22

None

United States v. John

Wed, 19 Apr 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-836

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

John

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 77-575

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 634 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, April 19, 1978

Decided

Friday, June 23, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1151

None

Duke Power Co. v. Carolina En v. Study Group

Mon, 20 Mar 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-262

Appellee

Study Group

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Duke Power Co. v. Carolina En

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 77-375

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

438 U.S. 59 (1978)

Argued

Monday, March 20, 1978

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Duke Power Co. v. Carolina En, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Atomic Energy

None

Tva v. Hill

Tue, 18 Apr 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1701

Petitioner

Tva

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hill

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 153 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, April 18, 1978

Decided

Thursday, June 15, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Hill, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 16 U.S.C. 1531

None

Crist v. Bretz

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1200

Appellee

Bretz

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Crist

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 28 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, November 1, 1977

Reargued:

Wednesday, March 22, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 14, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Burks v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-6528

Petitioner

Burks

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 1 (1978)

Argued

Monday, November 28, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, June 14, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Burks, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe

Mon, 09 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-5729

Petitioner

Oliphant

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Suquamish Indian Tribe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 191 (1978)

Argued

Monday, January 9, 1978

Decided

Monday, March 6, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

NLRB v. Iron Workers

Mon, 31 Oct 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-719

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Iron Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 335 (1978)

Argued

Monday, October 31, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, January 17, 1978

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

Browder v. Director, Ill. Dept. Of Corrections

Mon, 31 Oct 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-5325

Petitioner

Browder

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Director, Ill. Dept. Of Corrections

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 257 (1978)

Argued

Monday, October 31, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, January 10, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Culbert

Wed, 11 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-142

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Culbert

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 371 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, March 28, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1951

None

SEC v. Sloan

Mon, 27 Mar 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1607

Petitioner

Securities and Exchange Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sloan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 103 (1978)

Argued

March 27-28, 1978

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Sloan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Bell v. Ohio

Tue, 17 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-6513

Petitioner

Bell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ohio

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

438 U.S. 637 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, January 17, 1978

Decided

Monday, July 3, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Bell, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

None

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders

Tue, 28 Feb 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-335

Petitioner

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sanders

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 340 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, February 28, 1978

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Oppenheimer Fund, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Moore v. Illinois

Mon, 03 Oct 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-5344

Petitioner

Moore

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 220 (1977)

Argued

Monday, October 3, 1977

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay

Wed, 22 Mar 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1836

Petitioner

Coopers & Lybrand

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Livesay

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 463 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, March 22, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 21, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Coopers & Lybrand, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB

Tue, 25 Apr 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-453

Petitioner

Eastex, 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

437 U.S. 556 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, April 25, 1978

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Zablocki v. Redhail

Tue, 04 Oct 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Milwaukee County Courthouse

901 N 9th St Milwaukee MI 53233

Milwaukee, MI 53233

United States

43° 2' 28.0752" N, 87° 55' 25.482" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-879

Appellant

Roger C. Redhail

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Thomas E. Zablocki

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 374 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, October 4, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, January 18, 1978

Advocates

Ward L. Johnson Jr. (argued the cause for the appellant)

Robert H. Blondis (argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Roger C. Redhail, a Wisconsin minor, fathered a child. A court ordered him to pay child support. Two years later, he applied for a marriage license in Milwaukee County. His application was denied by County Clerk Thomas E. Zablocki who declined to issue the license under a state statute on the ground that Redhail owed more than $3,700 in child support.. Redhail filed a class action in federal district court against Zablocki and all Wisconsin county clerks. The court ruled in Redhail's favor. Zablocki appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Question

Did the Wisconsin statute violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In an 8-1 decision, the Court held that Wisconsin's statute violated the Equal Protection Clause and reaffirmed that marriage was a fundamental right. In the majority opinion authored by Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Court emphasized marriage as part of the right to privacy found in the Fourteenth Amendment as identified in Griswold v. Connecticut. While the state has an interest in ensuring that child support obligations were fulfilled, this statute only regulated those who wished to be married and did not justify the restriction on the right to marriage as found in Loving v. Virginia.

Pfizer Inc. v. India

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-749

Petitioner

Pfizer Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

India

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 308 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, November 1, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, January 11, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-682

Petitioner

Santa Clara Pueblo

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Martinez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 49 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, November 29, 1977

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Santa Clara Pueblo, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 25 U.S.C. 1301

None

California v. Texas

Wed, 29 Mar 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76 ORIG

Plaintiff

California

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Texas

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 601 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, March 29, 1978

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Trans Alaska Pipeline Rate Cases

Tue, 28 Mar 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-452

Petitioner

Trans Alaska Pipeline Rate Cases

Consolidation

No. 77-457

No. 77-551

No. 77-602

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 631 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, March 28, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, June 6, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for , 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

Butz v. Economou

Mon, 07 Nov 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-709

Petitioner

Butz

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Economou

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

438 U.S. 478 (1978)

Argued

Monday, November 7, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 29, 1978

Advocates

David C. Buxbaum (Argued the cause for the respondents)

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

Facts of the Case

Following a failed attempt by the Department of Agriculture to revoke or suspend his commodity futures commission company's registration, Arthur Economou sought damages against Earl Butz and several other federal administrative officials for wrongful initiation of administrative proceedings. On appeal from an adverse district court finding of absolute immunity for state officials, the New York Court of Appeals reversed as it found that federal administrators were only entitled to qualified immunity. Butz appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question

Are federal administrators entitled to absolute or qualified immunity in the face of challenges to their conduct of public business?

Conclusion

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

In a 4-to-5 opinion, the Court began by noting that absent exceptional circumstances federal executive officials are only entitled to qualified immunity, since such officials must abide by constitutional and statutory scope-of-power limitations. Federal officials who perform adjudicatory, or other similar prosecutorial functions, cannot, however, be held liable for mere "good faith" judgment errors. The Court reasoned that the risk of making unconstitutional determinations is outweighed by the need to preserve independent judgement, through grants of absolute immunity to judges and other similarly situated decision makers. The Court concluded that the similarity between the type of decision-making required of federal prosecutors and other administrative agents is sufficiently strong to warrant an extension of absolute immunity to the latter for decisions made in the course of their official conduct.

Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

Mon, 31 Oct 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-930

Appellee

Atlantic Richfield Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Ray

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 151 (1978)

Argued

Monday, October 31, 1977

Decided

Monday, March 6, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Ray, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 46 U.S.C. 215

None

Penn Central Transport Co. v. New York

Mon, 17 Apr 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Grand Central Terminal

42nd Street and Park Avenue. New York NY 10017

New York, NY 10017

United States

40° 45' 7.4484" N, 73° 58' 39.1836" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-444

Appellee

New York

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Penn Central Transport Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

438 U.S. 104 (1978)

Argued

Monday, April 17, 1978

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1978

Advocates

Leonard J. Koerner (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Daniel M. Gribbon (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Patricia Wald (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance)

Facts of the Case

The New York City Landmarks Preservation Law of 1965 empowered the city to designate certain structures and neighborhoods as "landmarks" or "landmark sites." Penn Central, which owned the Grand Central Terminal (opened in 1913), was not allowed to construct a multistory office building above it.

Question

Did the restriction against Penn Central constitute a "taking" in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for New York, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

No. The Court held that the restrictions imposed did not prevent Penn Central from ever constructing above the terminal in the future. New York's objection was to the nature of the proposed construction and not to construction in general implemented to "enhance" the Terminal. Preventing the construction of a 50-plus story addition above the station was a reasonable restriction substantially related to the general welfare of the city.

California v. United States

Tue, 28 Mar 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-285

Petitioner

California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

438 U.S. 645 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, March 28, 1978

Decided

Monday, July 3, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for California, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 43 U.S.C. 371

None

United States v. United States Gypsum Co.

Wed, 01 Mar 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1560

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States Gypsum Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

438 U.S. 422 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, March 1, 1978

Decided

Thursday, June 29, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States Gypsum Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Robinson-Patman

None

United States v. Sheffield Board Of Comm'rs

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1662

Appellee

Sheffield Board Of Comm'rs

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 110 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, October 11, 1977

Decided

Monday, March 6, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

Split Vote

None

National Soc. Of Professional Engineers v. U.S.

Wed, 18 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1767

Petitioner

National Soc. Of Professional Engineers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 679 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, January 18, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, April 25, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for U.S., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn.

Mon, 16 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1650

Appellee

Ohio State Bar Assn.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Ohralik

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 447 (1978)

Argued

Monday, January 16, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, May 30, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Ohio State Bar Assn., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Greene v. Massey

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-6617

Petitioner

Greene

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Massey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 19 (1978)

Argued

Monday, November 28, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, June 14, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Greene, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Mcdaniel v. Paty

Mon, 05 Dec 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1427

Appellee

Paty

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mcdaniel

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 618 (1978)

Argued

Monday, December 5, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, April 19, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mcdaniel, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Free Exercise of Religion

None

Bordenkircher v. Hayes

Wed, 09 Nov 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Kentucky Penitentiary

266 Water St. Eddyville 42038

Eddyville 42038

United States

37° 2' 55.1148" N, 88° 4' 41.0268" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1334

Petitioner

Bordenkircher

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hayes

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 357 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, November 9, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, January 18, 1978

Advocates

Robert L. Chenoweth (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

J. Vincent Aprile, II (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Paul Lewis Hayes was charged with forgery, an offense which carried a two-to- ten-year prison sentence. During plea negotiations, the prosecutor offered to pursue a five year sentence if Hayes would plead guilty. However, the prosecutor also stated that he would seek an indictment under the Kentucky Habitual Crime Act if the defendant did not register this plea. (Hayes had two prior felony convictions on his record.) If found guilty under this law, Hayes would be imprisoned for life. Hayes did not plead guilty and the prosecutor followed through on his promise.

Question

Does the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause prohibit state prosecutors from carrying out a threat made during plea negotiations to re-indict the accused on more serious charges if he does not plead guilty to the offense with which he was originally charged?

Conclusion

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

No. The Court held that the defendant's due process rights were not violated in this case. Justice Stewart spent some time describing the important role that plea bargaining plays in the nation's legal system, a role that has been accepted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Blackledge v. Allison (1977) and Brady v. United States (1970). This acceptance, in turn, implies that the prosecutor has a legitimate interest in persuading a defendant to relinquish his or her right to plead not guilty. Threatening a stiffer sentence is permissible and part of "any legitimate system which tolerates and encourages the negotiation of pleas," Stewart declared.

Mincey v. Arizona

Tue, 21 Feb 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-5353

Petitioner

Mincey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arizona

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 385 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, February 21, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 21, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Board Of Curators, Univ. Of Mo. v. Horowitz

Mon, 07 Nov 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-695

Petitioner

Board Of Curators, Univ. Of Mo.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Horowitz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 78 (1978)

Argued

Monday, November 7, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, March 1, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Board Of Curators, Univ. Of Mo., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Lakeside v. Oregon

Wed, 18 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-6942

Petitioner

Lakeside

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oregon

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 333 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, January 18, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, March 22, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Oregon, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

United States v. Macdonald

Mon, 09 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1892

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Macdonald

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 850 (1978)

Argued

Monday, January 9, 1978

Decided

Monday, May 1, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Massachusetts v. United States

Tue, 06 Dec 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1500

Petitioner

Massachusetts

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 444 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, March 29, 1978

Advocates

Allan A. Ryan, Jr. (Argued the cause for the United States)

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

Facts of the Case

In 1970, Congress imposed an annual registration tax on all civil aircraft that fly in the navigable airspace of the United States. The state of Massachusetts owned and utilized a helicopter for the purpose of patrolling highways and fulfilling other police duties. When Massachusetts refused to pay the tax, the federal government collected it from the state's accounts, plus interest and penalties. Massachusetts then sought a refund of the money collected.

Question

Did the tax on civil aircraft violate the implied immunity of state governments from federal taxation?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 26 U.S.C. 4491

No. The Court held that so long as charges did not discriminate against state functions, were based on fair approximations of uses of the system of navigable airspace, and were structured to produce revenues that did not exceed the total cost of the benefits to be supplied to national airsystem, there could be no basis for claims that the National Government was "using its taxing powers to control, unduly interfere with, or destroy" Massachusetts' ability to perform "essential services." The Court emphasized its reluctance to enlarge the scope of state immunity from federal taxation.

Los Angeles Dept. Of Water & Power v. Manhart

Wed, 18 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1810

Petitioner

Los Angeles Dept. Of Water & Power

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Manhart

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 702 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, January 18, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, April 25, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Los Angeles Dept. Of Water & Power, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

Split Vote

None

California v. Southland Royalty Co.

Wed, 07 Dec 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1114

Petitioner

California

Respondent

Southland Royalty Co.

Consolidation

No. 76-1133

No. 76-1587

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 519 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, December 7, 1977

Reargued:

Monday, April 17, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, May 31, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for California, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Natural Gas, or Natural Gas Policy Acts

None

U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-635

Appellee

Multistate Tax Comm.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

U.S. Steel Corp.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 452 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, October 11, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, February 21, 1978

Advocates

William D. Dexter (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Erwin N. Griswold (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

In 1972, twenty one states were members of the Multistate Tax Compact, a body formed by states to assist them in formulating and administering tax law relating to multistate businesses. The Compact had not received congressional approval.

Question

Did the formation of this group violate the the Compact Clause of Article I?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Multistate Tax Comm., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 3: Compact Clause

The Court found no constitutional violation. The Compact did not enhance state political power at the expense of the United States; it not confer to states powers which they did not already possess; it did not involve any delegation of state power to the Commission. Furthermore, argued Justice Powell, each state was free to withdraw from the group at any time.

Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co.

Wed, 22 Mar 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-560

Petitioner

Gardner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Westinghouse Broadcasting Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 478 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, March 22, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 21, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1292

None

United States v. Sotelo

Wed, 22 Feb 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1800

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sotelo

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 268 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, February 22, 1978

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland

Tue, 28 Feb 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Exxon Headquarters

5959 Las Colinas Boulevard Irving TX 75039

Irving, TX 75039

United States

32° 53' 27.186" N, 96° 56' 50.8488" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-10

Appellant

Exxon Corporation et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Respondent

Governor of Maryland et al.

Consolidation

No. 77-11, Shell Oil Co. v. Governor of Maryland et al.

No. 77-12, Continental Oil Co. et al. v. Governor of Maryland et al.

No. 77-47, Gulf Oil Corp. v. Governor of Maryland et al.

No. 77-64, Ashland Oil, Inc., et al. v. Governor of Maryland et al.

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 117 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, February 28, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 14, 1978

Advocates

William Simon (argued the cause for the appellants)

Francis B. Burch (Maryland Attorney General, argued the cause for the appellees)

Thomas M. Wilson III (argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

Maryland observed oil producer-operated stations receiving favorable rates from producers and refiners. In response, Maryland passed a statute prohibiting oil producers or refiners from operating gasoline stations within the state and requiring producers and refiners extend temporary price cuts to the stations they supplied. Exxon challenged the statute in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court, which ruled the statute invalid. The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed the ruling.

Question

(1) Does Maryland's statute violate the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution?

(2) Does Maryland's statute conflict with the Robinson-Patman Act?

Conclusion

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

No and no. In a 7-1 decision, the Court affirmed the Maryland Court of Appeals. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens cited Ferguson v. Skrupa establishing that the purpose of the judiciary is not to "weigh the wisdom of legislation," and therefore did not concern due process. Additionally, since all gasoline sold in Maryland came from out-of-state refineries, Maryland's statute did not discriminate against interstate commerce. The court acknowledged that while the price-cut provision conflicted with the purposes of the Robinson-Patman and Sherman Acts, the hypothetical situations of price discrimination presented were "speculative" and insufficient to invalidate the act. Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. did not take part in consideration or decision of this case.

Rinaldi v. United States

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:43:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-6194

Petitioner

Rinaldi

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 22 (1977)

Decided

Monday, November 7, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Hutto v. Finney

Tue, 21 Feb 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1660

Petitioner

Hutto

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Finney

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 678 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, February 21, 1978

Decided

Friday, June 23, 1978

Advocates

Philip E. Kaplan (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Garner L. Taylor, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Litigation challenging the conditions in the Arkansas prison system began in 1969. In evaluating the diet and sleeping arrangements of the inmates, the physical condition of cells, and the behavior of prison guards (some of whom were inmates who had been issued guns), a District Court called the conditions which inmates were forced to face "a dark and evil world completely alien to the free world." This case involved a challenge to the practice of "punitive isolation" in Arkansas prisons which was often done for indiscriminate periods of time in crowded windowless cells.

Question

Did punitive isolation for more than thirty days in the Arkansas prison system constitute cruel and unusual punishment as prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Finney, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

The Court held that punitive isolation for longer than thirty days in Arkansas prisons constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. Justice Stevens conceded that isolation in and of itself was not necessarily unconstitutional and may in fact serve an important, legitimate interest in administering a prison. However, when taken as a whole, continued Stevens, the conditions in Arkansas's prisons, combined with the severe risks to an inmate's health and safety which accompanied confinement in isolation, did constitute cruel and unusual punishment. "A filthy, overcrowded cell and a diet of 'gruel' might be tolerated for a few days and be intolerably cruel for weeks or months," Stevens concluded.

Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank v. Bougas

Mon, 03 Oct 1977 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-398

Petitioner

Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bougas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 35 (1977)

Argued

Monday, October 3, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, November 8, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bougas, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 94

None

United States v. Wheeler

Wed, 11 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1629

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wheeler

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 313 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, March 22, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Simpson v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-5761

Petitioner

Simpson

Respondent

United States

Consolidation

No. 76-5796

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 6 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, November 1, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, February 28, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Simpson, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 2113

None

FCC v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting

Mon, 16 Jan 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1471

Petitioner

Federal Communications Commission

Respondent

National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting

Consolidation

Channel Two Television Co. et al. v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, No. 76-1521

National Association of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications Commission et al., No. 76-1595

American Newspaper Publishers Assn. v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting et al., No. 76-1604

Illinois Broadcasting Co., Inc., et al. v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting et al., No. 76-1624

Post Co. et al. v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting et al., No. 76-1685

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 775 (1978)

Argued

Monday, January 16, 1978

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1978

Advocates

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for FCC, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Communication Act of 1934

None

United States v. New Mexico

Mon, 24 Apr 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-510

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New Mexico

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

438 U.S. 696 (1978)

Argued

April 24-25, 1978

Decided

Monday, July 3, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Oregon v. Mathiason

jgoldman — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:43:07 +0000

Location

Oregon State Police

700 SE Emigrant Ave Pendleton OR 97801

Pendleton, OR 97801

United States

45° 40' 21.504" N, 118° 46' 46.326" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-201

Petitioner

Oregon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Carl Mathiason

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 492 (1977)

Decided

Tuesday, January 25, 1977

Facts of the Case

An Oregon state police officer suspected Carl Mathiason of burglary and asked him to come to the police station for questioning. Mathiason came freely, spoke with the officer, and was not arrested at the time. He was arrested later and a trial court used evidence obtained during the questioning to convict him. Mathiason moved to suppress the evidence since he was not read his Miranda rights before the questioning. The court admitted the evidence since Mathiason was not in custody during the questioning. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Oregon reversed since it found that Matianson was in a "coercive environment" when questioned and therefore deserved to hear his Miranda rights.

Question

Can incriminating evidence obtained from a suspect during a voluntary interview be used if the police did not read Miranda rights to the suspect?

Conclusion

Yes. In a per curiam decision, the Court held that its decision in Miranda v. Arizona only required law enforcement officials to recite a suspect's rights when suspect had been "deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." The Court determined that in this case there was "no indication that the questioning took place in a context where respondent's freedom to depart was restricted in any way." Even if the police coercively pressured Mathiason during the interview, he came to the police station freely and was free to leave at any time. Therefore Miranda rights did not apply.