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