Cases - 1978 term

Federal Open Market Committee v. Merrill

Wed, 06 Dec 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1387

Petitioner

Federal Open Market Committee

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Merrill

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 340 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, December 6, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Federal Open Market Committee, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Rakas v. Illinois

Tue, 03 Oct 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-5781

Petitioner

Rakas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 128 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, October 3, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, December 5, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York

Mon, 16 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-511

Petitioner

Lo-Ji Sales, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 319 (1979)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Lo-Ji Sales, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatl.

Mon, 19 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-479

Petitioner

Edmonds

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Compagnie Generale Transatl.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 256 (1979)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Edmonds, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation

None

Mackey v. Montrym

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-69

Appellee

Montrym

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mackey

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 1 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, November 29, 1978

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Japan Line, Ltd. v. County Of Los Angeles

Mon, 08 Jan 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1378

Appellee

County Of Los Angeles

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Japan Line, Ltd.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 434 (1979)

Argued

Monday, January 8, 1979

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Japan Line, Ltd., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Smith v. Maryland

Wed, 28 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-5374

Petitioner

Smith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maryland

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 735 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, March 28, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, June 20, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Group Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Royal Drug Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-952

Petitioner

Group Life & Health Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Royal Drug Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 205 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, February 27, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Royal Drug Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 1011

None

Lake Country Estates v. Tahoe Planning Agcy.

Mon, 04 Dec 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1327

Petitioner

Lake Country Estates

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tahoe Planning Agcy.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 391 (1979)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1978

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Lake Country Estates, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment

None

California v. Arizona

Tue, 09 Jan 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78 ORIG

Plaintiff

California

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Arizona

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 59 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, January 9, 1979

Decided

Thursday, February 22, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for California, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2409

None

New York Tel. Co. v. New York Labor Dept.

Mon, 30 Oct 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-961

Petitioner

New York Tel. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York Labor Dept.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 519 (1979)

Argued

Monday, October 30, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, March 21, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for New York Labor Dept., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis

Tue, 20 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1645

Petitioner

Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lewis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 11 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1979

Reargued:

Tuesday, October 2, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, November 13, 1979

Advocates

Eric L. Keisman (on behalf of the Respondent)

Ralph C. Ferrara (as amicus curiae)

John M. Anderson (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 80

None

Southeastern Community College v. Davis

Mon, 23 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Southeastern Community College

4564 Chadbourn Highway Whiteville NC 28472

Whiteville, NC 28472

United States

34° 19' 40.6632" N, 78° 47' 19.1904" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-711

Petitioner

Southeastern Community College

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Frances Davis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 397 (1979)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1979

Advocates

Eugene Gressman (argued the cause for the petitioners)

Marc P. Charmatz (argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Frances Davis sought admission to the nursing program at Southeastern Community College, which received federal funds. Davis also suffered from a hearing disability, and was unable to understand speech without lip-reading. Davis' application was denied. She asked for reconsideration, and her application was again denied. Davis filed suit in United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, which ruled against her. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned that decision.

Question

Did Southeastern Community College violate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in denying Davis admission to its nursing program?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Southeastern Community College, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Rehabilitation

No. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. wrote for a unanimous court that an "otherwise qualified handicapped individual" specified by the Act meant one who meets all the program's requirements "in spite of his handicap" as opposed to "in every respect except as to limitations imposed by their handicap." Even with an improved hearing aid, Davis still required lip-reading to understand speech, and therefore was not "otherwise qualified." Since Davis could not be admitted to Southeastern's program without substantial changes to admission requirements, Davis' rejection did not constitute unlawful discrimination.

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Cbs

Mon, 15 Jan 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1578

Petitioner

Broadcast Music, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cbs

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 77-1583

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 1 (1979)

Argued

Monday, January 15, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Broadcast Music, Inc., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

United Steelworkers of America v. Weber

Wed, 28 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-432

Petitioner

United Steelworkers of America

Respondent

Weber

Consolidation

Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Weber, No. 78-435

United States v. Weber, No. 78-436

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 193 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, March 28, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1979

Advocates

Thompson Powers (Argued the cause for the petitioner, Kaiser Aluminum)

Michael R. Fontham (Argued the cause for respondent Weber in all cases)

Michael H. Gottesman (Argued the cause for the petitioner, Steelworkers Union)

Lawrence G. Wallace (Argued the cause for the United States et al., petitioners in No. 78-436)

Facts of the Case

The United Steelworkers of America and the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation implemented an affirmative action-based training program to increase the number of the company's black skilled craft workers. Half of the eligible positions in the training program were reserved for blacks. Weber, who was white, was passed over for the program. Weber claimed that he was the victim of reverse discrimination. These cases (United Steelworkers v. Weber and Kaiser Aluminum v. Weber) were also decided together with United States v. Weber.

Question

Did United and Kaiser Aluminum's training scheme violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United Steelworkers of America, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

No. The Court held that the training scheme was legitimate because the 1964 Act "did not intend to prohibit the private sector from taking effective steps" to implement the goals of Title VII. Since the program sought to eliminate archaic patterns of racial segregation and hierarchy while not prohibiting white employees from advancing in the company, it was consistent with the intent of the law.

Friedman v. Rogers

Wed, 08 Nov 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1163

Petitioner

Rogers

Respondent

Friedman

Consolidation

No. 77-1164

No. 77-1186

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 1 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, November 8, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, February 21, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Friedman, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Fare v. Michael C.

Tue, 27 Feb 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-334

Petitioner

Fare

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Michael C.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 707 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, June 20, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Fare, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miranda Warnings

None

Hunter v. Dean

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-6248

Petitioner

Hunter

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dean

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 281 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1978

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Babbitt v. Farm Workers

Wed, 21 Feb 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-225

Appellee

Farm Workers

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Babbitt

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 289 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, February 21, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, June 5, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Director, Workers' Comp. Progs. v. Rasmussen

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1465

Petitioner

Director, Workers' Comp. Progs.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rasmussen

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 77-1491

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 29 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, November 28, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, February 21, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Rasmussen, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation

None

Harrah Independent School Dist. v. Martin

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:34:14 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-443

Petitioner

Harrah Independent School Dist.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Martin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 194 (1979)

Decided

Monday, February 26, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Harrah Independent School Dist., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Davis v. Passman

Tue, 27 Feb 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-5072

Petitioner

Davis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Passman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 228 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, June 5, 1979

Advocates

Sana F. Shtasel (Argued the cause pro hac vice for petitioner)

A. Richard Gear (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Davis, a former employee of Louisiana Congressman Otto Passman, charged Passman with violating her Fifth Amendment right to due process. Prior to the time of her firing Passman wrote a note explaining that, even though he knew Davis as an "able, energetic, and a hard, hard worker", he preferred a man to work in her position. The Court of Appeals ruled that Davis had no civil remedies under the Fifth Amendment due process requirement.

Question

Did the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause afford Davis a right to a civil remedy against Passman?

Conclusion

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

Yes. Relying on Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents (1971) and Butz v. Economou (1978), the Court reversed the lower court's conclusions. Both cases affirmed a citizen's right to bring suit against federal officers for constitutional violations. In this case, Passman violated Davis's rights through sexual discrimination. The Court added that Passman's actions and words did not constitute protected speech and that a damage remedy provided a ready mechanism for remedial action.

Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest

Tue, 05 Dec 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1547

Petitioner

Douglas Oil Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Petrol Stops Northwest

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 211 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Douglas Oil Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Board Of Governors v. First Lincolnwood Corp.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-832

Petitioner

Board Of Governors

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

First Lincolnwood Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 234 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1978

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Board Of Governors, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 1842

None

Chrysler Corp. v. Brown

Wed, 08 Nov 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-922

Petitioner

Chrysler Corp.

Respondent

Brown

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 281 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, November 8, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ramsey v. New York

Thu, 22 Feb 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-6540

Petitioner

Ramsey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 444 (1979)

Argued

Thursday, February 22, 1979

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

P. C. Pfeiffer Co. v. Ford

Tue, 20 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-425

Petitioner

P. C. Pfeiffer Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ford

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 69 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1979

Reargued:

Monday, October 1, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, November 27, 1979

Advocates

Peter Buscemi (pro hac vice)

E. D. Vickery (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Dunn v. United States

Wed, 28 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-6949

Petitioner

Dunn

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 100 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, March 28, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Dunn, 0 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

Brown v. Texas

Wed, 21 Feb 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-6673

Appellee

Texas

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Brown

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 47 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, February 21, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Leo Sheep Co. v. United States

Mon, 15 Jan 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1686

Petitioner

Leo Sheep Co.

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 668 (1979)

Argued

January 15-16, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, March 27, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Leo Sheep Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 Stat. 489

None

Personnel Administrator MA v. Feeney

Mon, 26 Feb 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Massachusetts General Assembly

1 Ashburton Pl Boston MA 02108

Boston, MA 02108

United States

42° 21' 33.0156" N, 71° 3' 44.5176" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-233

Appellee

Feeney

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Personnel Administrator MA

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 256 (1979)

Argued

Monday, February 26, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, June 5, 1979

Advocates

Thomas R. Kiley (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Richard P. Ward (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

A Massachusetts law gave hiring preference to honorably discharged veterans applying for state civil service positions. Feeney, a woman who scored high on certain competitive civil service examinations, was ranked below male veterans who had lower scores.

Question

Did the law discriminate against women and violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

No. The Court held that the law was enacted to serve "legitimate and worthy purposes" and not to discriminate on the basis of sex. Even though few women benefitted from the scheme, Justice Stewart argued that "veteran status is not uniquely male." Furthermore, the law placed many men who were not veterans at a disadvantage as well. The distinction in the law was clearly between veterans and nonveterans, not between men and women.

Alexander v. U.S. Dept. Of HUD

Tue, 05 Dec 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-874

Petitioner

Alexander

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S. Dept. Of Housing and Urban Development

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Harris, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, et al. v. Cole et al., No. 77-1463

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 39 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for U.S. Dept. Of HUD, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 42 U.S.C. 4601

None

Torres v. Puerto Rico

Wed, 10 Jan 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1609

Appellee

Puerto Rico

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Torres

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 465 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, January 10, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org.

Mon, 02 Oct 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-719

Petitioner

Chapman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Houston Welfare Rights Org.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 77-5324

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 600 (1979)

Argued

Monday, October 2, 1978

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Chapman, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1343

None

Arizona Public Service Co. v. Snead

Mon, 26 Feb 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1810

Appellee

Snead

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Arizona Public Service Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 141 (1979)

Argued

Monday, February 26, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Arizona Public Service Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Hughes v. Oklahoma

Tue, 09 Jan 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1439

Appellee

Oklahoma

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hughes

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 322 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, January 9, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, April 24, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Columbus Board Of Education v. Penick

Tue, 24 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-610

Petitioner

Columbus Board Of Education

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Penick

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 449 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, April 24, 1979

Decided

Monday, July 2, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Massachusetts v. White

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1388

Petitioner

Massachusetts

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

White

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 280 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, November 28, 1978

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe

Wed, 21 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-160

Petitioner

Wilson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Omaha Indian Tribe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 78-161

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 653 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, June 20, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Wilson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 25 U.S.C. 194

None

Stafford v. Briggs

Tue, 24 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1546

Petitioner

Stafford

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Briggs

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Colby, Director, Central Intelligence Agency, et al. v. Driver et al., No. 78-303

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 527 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, April 24, 1979

Reargued:

Wednesday, November 7, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1980

Advocates

Peter Megaree Brown (on behalf of the petitioners)

Earl H. Nemser (on behalf of the petitioners)

Doris Peterson (on behalf of the respondents)

Elinor Hadley Stillman (on behalf of the petitioners)

Melvin L. Wulf (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Stafford, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1391

None

Addington v. Texas

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-5992

Appellee

Texas

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Addington

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 418 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, November 28, 1978

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

NLRB v. Baptist Hospital, Inc.

Mon, 23 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-223

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Baptist Hospital, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 773 (1979)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, June 20, 1979

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

Leroy v. Great Western United Corp.

Tue, 17 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-759

Appellee

Great Western United Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Leroy

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 173 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, April 17, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, June 26, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Leroy, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Parker v. Randolph

Tue, 20 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-99

Petitioner

Parker

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Randolph

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 62 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Parker, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

None

Jones v. Wolf

Tue, 16 Jan 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-91

Petitioner

Jones

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wolf

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 595 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, January 16, 1979

Decided

Monday, July 2, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Jones, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Free Exercise of Religion

None

Califano v. Boles

Wed, 25 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-808

Appellee

Boles

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Califano

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 282 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, April 25, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Rutherford

Wed, 25 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-605

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rutherford

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 544 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, April 25, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic, and related statutes

None

Burks v. Lasker

Wed, 17 Jan 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1724

Petitioner

Burks

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lasker

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 471 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, January 17, 1979

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Burks, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 80

None

Washington v. Fishing Vessel Assn.

Wed, 28 Feb 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-983

Petitioner

Washington

Respondent

Fishing Vessel Assn.

Consolidation

No. 78-119

No. 78-139

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 658 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, February 28, 1979

Decided

Monday, July 2, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Washington, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 Stat. 927

None

Miller v. Youakim

Mon, 30 Oct 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-742

Appellee

Youakim

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Miller

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 125 (1979)

Argued

Monday, October 30, 1978

Decided

Thursday, February 22, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Corbitt v. New Jersey

Tue, 03 Oct 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-5903

Appellee

New Jersey

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Corbitt

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 212 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, October 3, 1978

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for New Jersey, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Trial By Jury

None

National Muffler Dealers Assn. v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1172

Petitioner

National Muffler Dealers Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 472 (1979)

Argued

Monday, November 27, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, March 20, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

New Jersey v. Portash

Tue, 05 Dec 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1489

Petitioner

New Jersey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Portash

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 450 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, March 20, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Burch v. Louisiana

Thu, 22 Feb 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Trial Court

2700 Tulane Ave New Orleans LA 70119

New Orleans, LA 70119

United States

29° 57' 42.462" N, 90° 5' 26.9772" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-90

Petitioner

Burch

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 130 (1979)

Argued

Thursday, February 22, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1979

Advocates

Louise Korns (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Jack Peebles (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Burch was found guilty by a nonunanimous six-member jury of showing obscene films. The court imposed a suspended prison sentence of two consecutive seven- month terms and fined him $1,000.

Question

Does a conviction by a nonunanimous six-member jury in a state criminal trial for a nonpetty offense violate the accused's right to a trial by jury as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

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

The Court found that convictions by the nonunanimous six-member jury violated the Constitution. Tracing the development of the Court's considerations of this issue, Justice Rehnquist indicated that Burch's case sat at the "intersection of our decisions concerning jury size and unanimity." Rehnquist relied on the Court's holding in Ballew v. Georgia (1978) and the practices in several of the states to find against convictions by nonunanimous juries of six members. Only two of the states that used six-member juries in trials for petty offenses allowed verdicts to be less than unanimous. This "near uniform judgment of the Nation" of the inappropriateness of this jury arrangement, argued Rehnquist, provided the Court with a "useful guide" in determining constitutionally allowable jury practices.

Sandstrom v. Montana

Wed, 18 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-5384

Petitioner

Sandstrom

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Montana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 510 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Gladstone, Realtors v. Village Of Bellwood

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1493

Petitioner

Gladstone, Realtors

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Village Of Bellwood

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 91 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, November 29, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1979

Advocates

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Village Of Bellwood, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Housing

None

Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans

Wed, 28 Feb 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-275

Petitioner

Oscar Mayer & Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Evans

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 750 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, February 28, 1979

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Oscar Mayer & Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Age Discrimination in Employment (ADEA)

None

Cannon v. University Of Chicago

Tue, 09 Jan 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-926

Petitioner

Cannon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

University Of Chicago

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 677 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, January 9, 1979

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Cannon, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Education Amendments of 1972

None

Williams v. Brown

Mon, 19 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-357

Appellee

Brown

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Williams

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 236 (1980)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1979

Reargued:

Monday, October 29, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, April 22, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Williams, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 15: Fifteenth Amendment

None

Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB

Wed, 28 Feb 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1806

Petitioner

Ford Motor Co.

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 488 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, February 28, 1979

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1979

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

Teamsters v. Daniel

Tue, 31 Oct 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-753

Petitioner

Teamsters

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Daniel

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 77-754

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 551 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, October 31, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, January 16, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Naftalin

Mon, 26 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-561

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Naftalin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 768 (1979)

Argued

Monday, March 26, 1979

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore

Mon, 30 Oct 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1305

Petitioner

Parklane Hosiery Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shore

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 322 (1979)

Argued

Monday, October 30, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, January 9, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist.

Tue, 07 Nov 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1051

Petitioner

Givhan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Western Line Consol. School Dist.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 410 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, November 7, 1978

Decided

Thursday, January 4, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Barry v. Barchi

Tue, 07 Nov 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-803

Appellee

Barchi

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Barry

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 55 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, November 7, 1978

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington

Mon, 26 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-309

Petitioner

Touche Ross & Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Redington

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 560 (1979)

Argued

Monday, March 26, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Touche Ross & Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Leis v. Flynt

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:34:18 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1618

Petitioner

Leis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Flynt

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 438 (1979)

Decided

Monday, January 15, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ambach v. Norwick

Wed, 10 Jan 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Location

New York State Education Department

89 Washington Ave Albany NY 12207

Albany, NY 12207

United States

42° 39' 14.31" N, 73° 45' 27.5688" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-808

Appellant

Gordon M. Ambach

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Susan M. W. Norwick and Tarja U. K. Dachinger

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 68 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, January 10, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1979

Advocates

Judith A. Gordon (argued the cause for the appellant)

Bruce J. Ennis, Jr. (argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

Susan Norwick and Tarja Dachinger were both foreign nationals who had resided in the United States for many years and were married to United States citizens. Both were eligible for citizenship, but had refused to apply. Both had applied for certification as public school teachers in New York State. New York law prohibited the certification of non-citizen teachers who had not sought citizenship. Both applications were denied certification solely on that ground. Norwick filed suit in federal district court, which Dachinger later joined. The three-judge district court ruled in their favor, arguing that the statute as "overbroad."

Question

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

Conclusion

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

No. In a 5-4 opinion, the Court reversed the District Court and held that states could be justified in barring aliens from certain positions in government. Justice Lewis F. Powell's majority opinion asserted the state's interest in charging teachers with "an obligation to promote civic virtues and understanding in their classes, regardless of the subject taught." The statute furthered this interest, in that it affected only non-citizens who did not want to seek citizenship. This interest satisfied the "rational relationship" required by _Foley v. Connelie

Colautti v. Franklin

Tue, 03 Oct 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-891

Appellee

Franklin

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Colautti

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 379 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, October 3, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, January 9, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Caceres

Mon, 08 Jan 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1309

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Caceres

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 741 (1979)

Argued

January 8-9, 1979

Decided

Monday, April 2, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Exclusionary Rule (admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment)

None

Delaware v. Prouse

Wed, 17 Jan 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1571

Petitioner

Delaware

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Prouse

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 648 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, January 17, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, March 27, 1979

Advocates

Charles M. Oberly, III (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

David M. Lukoff (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

A Delaware patrolman stopped William Prouse's car to make a routine check of his driver's license and vehicle registration. The officer had not observed any traffic violation or suspicious conduct on the part of Prouse. After stopping the car, the officer uncovered marijuana. The marijuana was later used to indict Prouse.

Question

Did the officer's search of Prouse's automobile constitute an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Prouse, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

Yes. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the privacy interests of travelers outweighed the state interests in discretionary spot checks of automobiles. The Court found that random checks made only marginal contributions to roadway safety and compliance with registration requirements; less intrusive means could have been used to serve the same ends. Officers must be held to a "probable cause" standard for searches, otherwise individuals would be subject to "unfettered governmental intrusion" each time they entered an automobile.

United States v. 564.54 Acres Of Land

Tue, 27 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-488

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

564.54 Acres Of Land

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 506 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1979

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Southern R. Co. v. Seaboard Allied Milling Corp.

Mon, 23 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-575

Petitioner

Southern R. Co.

Respondent

Seaboard Allied Milling Corp.

Consolidation

No. 78-597

No. 78-604

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 444 (1979)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Califano v. Yamasaki

Mon, 19 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1511

Petitioner

Califano

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yamasaki

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 682 (1979)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, June 20, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Califano, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

None

Great A & P Tea Co. v. Ftc

Mon, 04 Dec 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-654

Petitioner

Great A & P Tea Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ftc

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 69 (1979)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1978

Decided

Thursday, February 22, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Great A & P Tea Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Robinson-Patman

None

Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co.

Tue, 20 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-482

Petitioner

Smith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Daily Mail Publishing Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 97 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, June 26, 1979

Advocates

Cletus B. Hanley (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Floyd Abrams (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

A West Virginia statute made it a crime for a newspaper to publish, without approval of juvenile court, the name of any youth charged as a juvenile offender.

Question

Did the law violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Daily Mail Publishing Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. Chief Justice Burger reasoned that governmental attempts to restrict the publication of truthful information "seldom can satisfy constitutional standards." As long as the information is lawfully obtained, as it was in this case involving a shooting at a junior high school, the state cannot restrict a newspaper from publishing a juvenile offender's name unless the restriction serves a substantial state interest. No such interest was present in this case.

Holt Civic Club v. Tuscaloosa

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-515

Appellee

Tuscaloosa

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Holt Civic Club

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 60 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, November 28, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bell v. Wolfish

Tue, 16 Jan 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Metropolitan Correctional Center

150 Park Row New York NY

New York, NY

United States

40° 42' 46.9476" N, 74° 0' 3.5496" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1829

Petitioner

Bell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wolfish

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 520 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, January 16, 1979

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1979

Advocates

Phylis Skloot Bamberger (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Andrew L. Frey (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

A class action lawsuit challenged the legality of conditions facing pretrial detainees in a New York City correctional facility. Petitioners claimed that double-bunking, restrictions on reading materials that inmates were allowed to receive, and required cavity searches and shakedowns amounted to punishment before conviction.

Question

Do certain conditions of confinement violate the individual liberty, due process, and privacy of pretrial detainees as protected by the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments through the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

No. The Court found that that the conditions of confinement did not infringe upon a pretrial detainee's rights. Justice Rehnquist's opinion argued that the issue of prison management is ripe with "judgment calls" which rest outside the jurisdiction of the judiciary. As long as administrative practices are implemented in the genuine interest of "safeguarding institutional security" then they do not warrant judicial scrutiny and are consistent with the Constitution.

Nevada v. Hall

Tue, 07 Nov 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1337

Petitioner

Nevada

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hall

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 410 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, November 7, 1978

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Hall, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment

None

Vance v. Bradley

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

Location

US Department of State

2201 C St NW Washington DC 20520

Washington, DC 20520

United States

38° 53' 36.6468" N, 77° 3' 0.0972" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1254

Appellant

Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Holbrook Bradley et al.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 93 (1979)

Argued

Monday, November 27, 1978

Decided

Thursday, February 22, 1979

Advocates

Wade H. McCree (Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the appellants)

Zona F. Hostetler (argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

Section 632 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 required that members of the Foreign Service retirement system retire at 60. No mandatory retirement age was specified for employees covered by the Civil Service retirement system. Holbrook Bradley, a member of the Foreign Service retirement system, challenged the statute in United States District Court for the District of Columbia and prevailed. The government appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question

Did Section 632 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 violate the Equal Protection component of the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

No. In an 8-1 opinion written by Justice Byron R. White, the Court emphasized the distinction between the Civil Service and Foreign Service, and the "special attention" paid to the Foreign Service by Congress. The Court interpreted the purpose of Section 632 to be the encouragement of the "highest performance in the ranks of the Foreign Service by assuring that opportunities for promotion would be available," a legitimate interest that justified the distinction. The Court also recognized the possibility that service in the Foreign Service would be more rigorous than service in the Civil Service. Given that possibility, Congress had a "reasonable basis" for enacting the statute, satisfying the rationality standard set forth in Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia.

Lalli v. Lalli

Wed, 04 Oct 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1115

Appellee

Lalli

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lalli

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 259 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, October 4, 1978

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Butner v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1410

Petitioner

Butner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 48 (1979)

Argued

Monday, November 27, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, February 21, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

United States v. Batchelder

Wed, 18 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-776

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Batchelder

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 114 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 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

Rose v. Mitchell

Tue, 16 Jan 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1701

Petitioner

Rose

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mitchell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 545 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, January 16, 1979

Decided

Monday, July 2, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

Split Vote

None

New Motor Vehicle Bd. Of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co.

Tue, 03 Oct 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-837

Petitioner

Orrin W. Fox Co.

Respondent

New Motor Vehicle Bd. Of Cal.

Consolidation

No. 77-849

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 96 (1978)

Argued

October 3-4, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, December 5, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for New Motor Vehicle Bd. Of Cal., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Brown v. Felsen

Wed, 21 Feb 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-58

Petitioner

Brown

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Felsen

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 127 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, February 21, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Brown, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: res judicata

None

Dayton Board Of Education v. Brinkman

Tue, 24 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-627

Petitioner

Dayton Board Of Education

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brinkman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 526 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, April 24, 1979

Decided

Monday, July 2, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

FCC v. Midwest Video Corp.

Wed, 10 Jan 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1575

Petitioner

Federal Communications Commission

Respondent

Midwest Video Corp.

Consolidation

American Civil Liberties Union v. Federal Communications Commission et al., No. 77-1648

National Black Media Coalition et al. v. Midwest Video Corporation et al., No. 77-1662

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 689 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, January 10, 1979

Decided

Monday, April 2, 1979

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for petitioner in No. 77-1575 and in support of petitioners in Nos. 77-1648 and 77-1662 under this Court's Rule 21 (4))

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Midwest Video Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Communication Act of 1934

None

Marchioro v. Chaney

Mon, 26 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-647

Appellee

Chaney

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Marchioro

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 191 (1979)

Argued

Monday, March 26, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Electrical Workers v. Foust

Mon, 26 Feb 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-38

Petitioner

Electrical Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Foust

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 42 (1979)

Argued

Monday, February 26, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Electrical Workers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Railway Labor

None

Gannett Co. v. DePasquale

Tue, 07 Nov 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Seneca County Court

48 West Williams Street Waterloo NY 13165

Waterloo, NY 13165

United States

42° 54' 20.2968" N, 76° 52' 0.3252" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1301

Petitioner

Gannett Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

DePasquale

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 368 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, November 7, 1978

Decided

Monday, July 2, 1979

Advocates

Robert C. Bernius (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Bernard Kobroff (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Two suspects charged with murder, robbery, and grand larceny requested that the public be excluded from a pre-trial hearing concerning the admissibility of evidence. They argued that an "unabated buildup" of adverse publicity had jeopardized their ability to receive a fair trial. The request was granted by the judge, and no objections were made at the time. The judge then denied press access to the pre-trial hearing and refused to immediately release the transcript of the proceedings. The case was argued and decided with Marshall, Secretary of Labor v. American Petroleum Institute et al.

Question

Did the press and members of the public have a constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to attend the trial?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for DePasquale, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 6: Other Sixth Amendment Provisions

The Court held that members of the public had no right to attend criminal trials under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court noted that judges had "an affirmative constitutional duty" to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity, and that closure of pretrial proceedings was an effective method to do so. The Court found that the Sixth Amendment, while granting defendants the right to a public trial, did not imply a public right of access to trials. The Court added that since the suppression of the transcript was only temporary, no violation of the First Amendment had occurred.

Ulster County Court v. Allen

Thu, 22 Feb 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1554

Petitioner

Ulster County Court

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Allen

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 140 (1979)

Argued

Thursday, February 22, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB

Mon, 06 Nov 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-968

Petitioner

Detroit Edison Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 301 (1979)

Argued

Monday, November 6, 1978

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Detroit Edison Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Orr v. Orr

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

Location

Lee County Courthouse

215 S 9th St Opelika AL 36801

Opelika, AL 36801

United States

32° 38' 47.0148" N, 85° 22' 45.3216" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1119

Appellant

Willam Orr

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Lillian Orr

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 268 (1979)

Argued

Monday, November 27, 1978

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1979

Advocates

John L. Capell III (argued the cause for appellant William Orr)

W. F. Horsley (argued the cause for appellee Lillian Orr)

Facts of the Case

William and Lillian Orr were divorced in February 1974. William Orr was ordered to pay monthly alimony of $1,240. Lillian Orr sued William Orr for lack of payments in July 1976. Alabama's alimony statutes only required husbands to pay alimony, but not wives. William Orr challenged these statutes as unconstitutional. The Lee County Circuit Court ruled against him. The Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama affirmed this ruling. The Supreme Court of Alabama granted a writ of certiorari that was later dismissed.

Question

(1) Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over William Orr's challenge?

(2) Do Alabama's alimony statutes violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

Yes and yes. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court established its jurisdiction over the question and ruled that Alabama's statutes were unconstitutional. In writing for the majority, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. maintained that under the Equal Protection Clause, "classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives." The Court rejected several objectives proposed by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, holding that gender was not an "accurate proxy" for financial need. Justices Harry A. Blackmun and John Paul Stevens each wrote concurring opinions.

North Carolina v. Butler

Tue, 27 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-354

Petitioner

North Carolina

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Butler

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 369 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, April 24, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for North Carolina, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miranda Warnings

None

Parham v. Hughes

Mon, 15 Jan 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-3

Appellee

Hughes

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Parham

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 347 (1979)

Argued

Monday, January 15, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, April 24, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.

Wed, 25 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-690

Petitioner

Reiter

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sonotone Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 330 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, April 25, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Kentucky v. Whorton

Mon, 16 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-749

Petitioner

Kentucky

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Whorton

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 786 (1979)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1979

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Baker v. Mccollan

Mon, 23 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-752

Petitioner

Baker

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mccollan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 137 (1979)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, June 26, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Hutchinson v. Proxmire

Tue, 17 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Congress

Constitution and Delaware Street Washington D.C. 20002

Washington 20002

United States

38° 53' 31.1496" N, 77° 0' 29.1744" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-680

Petitioner

Hutchinson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Proxmire

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 111 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, April 17, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, June 26, 1979

Advocates

Michael E. Cavanaugh (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Alan Raywid (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

In early 1975, Senator William Proxmire implemented what he called the "Golden Fleece Award of the Month." The award was given out to governmental agencies which sponsored programs and research that Proxmire found to be a waste of tax dollars. One Golden Fleece went to federal agencies sponsoring the research of Ronald Hutchinson, a behavioral scientist. Proxmire detailed the "nonsense" of Hutchinson's research on the floor of the Senate, in conferences with his staff, and in a newsletter sent to over 100,000 of his constituents. Hutchinson sued for libel, arguing that Proxmire's statements defamed his character and caused him to endure financial loss.

Question

Were Proxmire's activities and statements against Hutchinson's research protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Hutchinson, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 1: Speech or Debate Clause

No. The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court and held that Proxmire's statements in his newsletters and press releases were not protected by the Speech and Debate Clause. However, in upholding this ruling, the Court also found that Proxmire's statements were not made with "actual malice" and thus, were not libelous. Chief Justice Burger, relying on the Court's finding in Doe v. McMillan (1973), concluded that while speeches in Congress and discussions with staff were protected by Section 6, statements in newsletters and press releases were not because they were not "essential to the deliberations of the Senate" nor were they part of the legislature's "deliberative process."

United States v. Timmreck

Mon, 16 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-744

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Timmreck

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 780 (1979)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1979

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Illinois Elections Bd. v. Socialist Workers Party

Mon, 06 Nov 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1248

Appellee

Socialist Workers Party

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Illinois Elections Bd.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 173 (1979)

Argued

Monday, November 6, 1978

Decided

Thursday, February 22, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United California Bank v. United States

Wed, 04 Oct 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1016

Petitioner

United California Bank

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 180 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, October 4, 1978

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Michigan v. Defillippo

Wed, 21 Feb 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1680

Petitioner

Michigan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Defillippo

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 31 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, February 21, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Great American Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Novotny

Wed, 18 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-753

Petitioner

Great American Federal Savings & Loan Association

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

John R. Novotny

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 366 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1979

Advocates

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Great American Federal Savings & Loan Association, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1985)

None

Dunaway v. New York

Wed, 21 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-5066

Petitioner

Dunaway

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 200 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, June 5, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

New York Transit Authority v. Beazer

Wed, 06 Dec 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Location

New York Transit Authority

2 Broadway New York NY 10004

New York, NY 10004

United States

40° 42' 16.3368" N, 74° 0' 47.664" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1427

Petitioner

New York Transit Authority

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Carl Beazer et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 568 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, December 6, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, March 21, 1979

Advocates

Joan Offner (argued the cause for the petitioner)

Deborah M. Greenberg (argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Carl Beazer and Jose Reyes were employees of the New York Transit Authority (NYTA). Both were heroin addicts undergoing methadone treatment. NYTA maintained a policy against hiring anyone using narcotics. Methadone was considered a narcotic, and both Beazer and Reyes were terminated after NYTA learned of their methadone use. Beazer and Reyes filed a class action against the Transit Authority, alleging that NYTA's policy discriminated against blacks and Hispanics. They cited a statistic showing that 81 percent of suspected violations of NYTA's policy were black or Hispanic. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled for Beazer, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed this decision.

Question

Did the New York Transit Authority's prohibition against the hiring of anybody using methadone violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for New York Transit Authority, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

No and no. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court reversed the Second Circuit and held that the Transit Authority's policy was not unconstitutional or illegal under the Civil Rights Act. Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens described Beazer's statistical argument as "weak", as the 81 percent statistic did not relate to methadone users specifically. The Court recognized the public safety interest in keeping narcotics users from working for NYTA. The narcotics rule was an allowable policy choice made by NYTA, and any specific exemption for methadone users from the narcotics rule would have been "costly" and "imprecise." Justice Lewis Powell wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Secy. Of Pub. Welf. v. Institutionalized Juveniles

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1715

Appellee

Institutionalized Juveniles

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Secy. Of Pub. Welf.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 640 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, October 10, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 20, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Secy. Of Pub. Welf., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Duren v. Missouri

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-6067

Petitioner

Duren

Respondent

Missouri

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 357 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, November 1, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, January 9, 1979

Advocates

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (argued the cause for the petitioner)

Lee M. Nation (argued the cause for the petitioner)

Nanette Laughrey (argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Duren, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 6: Other Sixth Amendment Provisions

None

Wolston v. Reader's Digest Assn., Inc.

Tue, 17 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-5414

Petitioner

Wolston

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reader's Digest Assn., Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 157 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, April 17, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, June 26, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Jackson v. Virginia

Wed, 21 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-5283

Petitioner

Jackson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Virginia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 307 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Dalia v. United States

Tue, 09 Jan 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1722

Petitioner

Dalia

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 238 (1979)

Argued

January 9-10, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates

Wed, 17 Jan 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-201

Petitioner

Greenholtz

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nebraska Penal Inmates

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 1 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, January 17, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Herbert v. Lando

Tue, 31 Oct 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1105

Petitioner

Herbert

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lando

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 153 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, October 31, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1979

Advocates

Jonathan W. Lubell (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Floyd Abrams (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Anthony Herbert was a retired Army officer who served in Vietnam. While in Vietnam, he accused superior officers of covering up atrocities that American troops had committed. The Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) produced and broadcast a documentary of the petitioner's story. Herbert sued for libel arguing that the program falsely and maliciously portrayed his character, causing him financial loss. In order to prove libel under the "actual malice" standard, Herbert's attorneys deposed Lando as well as the producer and the editor of the documentary, attempting to deduce the editorial decisions that were made during the production of the program.

Question

In an accusation of libel, do the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect members of the press from inquiries into their thoughts, opinions, and conclusions that go into the editorial process?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Herbert, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

The Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and held that the privilege not to answer editorial inquiries is not absolute. Justice White argued that shielding editorial decision-making from inquiry would "substantially enhance the burden of proving actual malice," a burden which was already substantial in the Court's view. White was confident that investigations into this process for falsehood or libelous reporting would not lead to self-censorship of stories that are documented and true; "only reckless error will be discouraged," which would not threaten the constitutionally protected freedom of the press.

County Of Los Angeles v. Davis

Tue, 05 Dec 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1553

Petitioner

County Of Los Angeles

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Davis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 625 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, March 27, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mobile v. Bolden

Mon, 19 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Mobile City Council

205 Government Street Mobile AL 36602

Mobile, AL 36602

United States

30° 41' 22.4808" N, 88° 2' 33.8316" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1844

Appellee

Bolden

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mobile

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 55 (1980)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1979

Reargued:

Monday, October 29, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, April 22, 1980

Advocates

James U. Blacksher (on behalf of Appellees Bolden Et Al)

J. U. Blacksher (Reargued the cause for the appellees)

Charles S. Rhyne (Reargued the cause for the appellants)

James P. Turner (Reargued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance)

Eric Schnapper (on behalf of Appellees Brown Et Al)

William H. Allen (on behalf of Appellants Williams Et Al)

Facts of the Case

Wiley L. Bolden and other residents of Mobile, Alabama brought a class action on behalf of all black citizens in Mobile. They argued that the practice of electing the City Commissioners at-large unfairly diluted the voting strength of black citizens. A district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Bolden.

Question

Did the at-large system violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mobile, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 15: Fifteenth Amendment

No. The Court held that the Fifteenth Amendment did not entail "the right to have Negro candidates elected," and that only purposefully discriminatory denials of the freedom to vote on the basis of race demanded constitutional remedies. The Court also found that multimember legislative districts were not unconstitutional per se; such legislative apportionments only violated the Fourteenth Amendment if they were "conceived or operated as [a] purposeful devic[e] to further racial. . .discrimination." In short, the Court held that facially neutral actions were unconstitutional only if motivated by discriminatory purposes.

Helstoski v. Meanor

Tue, 27 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-546

Petitioner

Helstoski

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Meanor

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 500 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Meanor, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 1: Speech or Debate Clause

None

Scott v. Illinois

Mon, 04 Dec 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1177

Petitioner

Scott

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 367 (1979)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1978

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1979

Advocates

John S. Elson (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Gerri Papushkewych (Argued the cause for respondent)

Facts of the Case

Scott was convicted in a bench trial of shoplifting and fined $50. The statute applicable to his case set the maximum penalty at a $500 fine and/or one year in jail.

Question

Did the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require Illinois to provide Scott with trial counsel?

Conclusion

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

A plurality held that Illinois had not violated the Constitution. Writing for four of the justices, Rehnquist clarified the Court's holding in Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972) and argued that states could only sentence a convicted criminal to imprisonment if that person had been represented by counsel. Since Scott was not sentenced to imprisonment, even though the applicable statute allowed for it, the state was not obligated to provide counsel. Rehnquist called that line of reasoning "the central premise of Argersinger."

Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:34:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1223

Petitioner

Smith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arkansas State Highway Employees

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 463 (1979)

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bellotti v. Baird

Tue, 27 Feb 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Massachusetts General Assembly

1 Ashburton Place Boston MA 02108

Boston, MA 02108

United States

42° 21' 33.0156" N, 71° 3' 44.5176" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-329

Appellee

Baird

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Bellotti

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

Hunerwadel v. Baird, No. 78-330

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 622 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 1979

Decided

Monday, July 2, 1979

Facts of the Case

A Massachusetts law required minors to gain parental consent before having an abortion. However, if either or both of the parents refused, a judge of the superior court could allow a minor to have the procedure "for good cause shown."

Question

Did the law unconstitutionally restrict the right of a minor to have an abortion?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Baird, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

The Court found the statute unconstitutional for two reasons. First, it allowed judicial authorization for an abortion to be withheld from a minor who is mature and competent enough to make the decision independently. Second, it required parental notification in all cases (parents were required to be notified if their daughter initiated proceedings in superior court) without allowing the minor to seek an independent judicial assessment of her competence to decide the abortion issue.

Quern v. Jordan

Wed, 08 Nov 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-841

Petitioner

Quern

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jordan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 332 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, November 8, 1978

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Jordan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment

None

Toll v. Moreno

Thu, 22 Feb 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-154

Petitioner

Toll

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Moreno

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 458 (1979)

Argued

Thursday, February 22, 1979

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Dougherty County Board of Education v. White

Mon, 02 Oct 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-120

Appellant

White

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Dougherty County Board of Education

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 32 (1978)

Argued

October 2-3, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, November 28, 1978

Advocates

Jesse W. Walters (argued the cause for the appellants)

John R. Myer (argued the cause for the appellee)

Lawrence G. Wallace (Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for White, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

None

Marquette Nat. Bank v. First Of Omaha Corp.

Tue, 31 Oct 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1265

Petitioner

Marquette Nat. Bank

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

First Of Omaha Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 77-1258

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 299 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, October 31, 1978

Decided

Monday, December 18, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for First Of Omaha Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 85

None

NLRB v. Catholic Bishop Of Chicago

Mon, 30 Oct 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-752

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Catholic Bishop Of Chicago

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 490 (1979)

Argued

Monday, October 30, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, March 21, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Catholic Bishop Of Chicago, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Andrus v. Sierra Club

Wed, 18 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-625

Petitioner

Andrus

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sierra Club

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 347 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Andrus, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Environmental Policy

None

Payton v. New York

Mon, 26 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-5420

Petitioner

New York

Respondent

Payton

Consolidation

No. 78-5421, Riddick v. New York

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 573 (1980)

Argued

Monday, March 26, 1979

Reargued:

Tuesday, October 9, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, April 15, 1980

Advocates

William E. Hellerstein (on behalf of the Appellants)

Peter L. Zimroth (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

New York City police suspected Theodore Payton of murdering a gas station manager. The police forcibly entered Payton's home thinking he was there (he was not) and found evidence connecting Payton to the crime, which was introduced at Payton's trial. The police lacked an arrest warrant when they entered his home. However, they acted under a New York law allowing police to enter a private residence to make a felony arrest without a warrant. At trial, Payton unsuccessfully sought to suppress the evidence as the fruit of an illegal search. State courts upheld. In the companion case, victims identified Obie Riddick in June 1973 for robberies in 1971. Police learned of his whereabouts in 1974. Without a warrant, they knocked on his door, entered his residence and arrested him. A search for weapons revealed illegal drugs. He was indicted on narcotics charges but sought the suppression of the evidence based on a warrantless entry. The trial judge concluded that the entry was authorized by the New York law and that the search was therefore permissible. Riddick was convicted. The appeals court affirmed.

Question

Does New York statute authorizing warrantless arrests and searches violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures?

Conclusion

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

Yes. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the 6 to 3 majority, held that the Fourth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, "prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest." Warrantless arrests and searches went to the core of the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy in a citizen's dwelling. This protection was too important to be violated on the basis of a police officer's on-the-spot decision regarding probable cause. In the absence of special circumstances, a search of a residence is permissible only after a finding of probable cause by a neutral magistrate issuing a search warrant. Justice Byron R. White, joined by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justice William H. Rehnquist, dissented. White maintained that common law and practice prior to and at the time the Fourth Amendment was adopted did not limit a police officer's inherent power to arrest or search.

United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc.

Mon, 08 Jan 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1359

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kimbell Foods, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 77-1644

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 715 (1979)

Argued

Monday, January 8, 1979

Decided

Monday, April 2, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Kimbell Foods, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-533

Petitioner

Hisquierdo

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hisquierdo

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 572 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, November 1, 1978

Decided

Monday, January 22, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Hisquierdo, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 45 U.S.C. 231

None

Washington v. Yakima Indian Nation

Mon, 02 Oct 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-388

Appellee

Yakima Indian Nation

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Washington

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 463 (1979)

Argued

Monday, October 2, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, January 16, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Washington, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 67 Stat. 588

None

United States v. Addonizio

Tue, 27 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-156

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Addonizio

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 178 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Moore v. Sims

Mon, 26 Feb 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-6

Appellee

Sims

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Moore

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 415 (1979)

Argued

Monday, February 26, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ferc v. Pennzoil Producing Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-648

Petitioner

Ferc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pennzoil Producing Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 508 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, November 28, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, January 16, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Ferc, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Natural Gas, or Natural Gas Policy Acts

None

Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil Co.

Wed, 06 Dec 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1413

Petitioner

Aronson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Quick Point Pencil Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 257 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, December 6, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, February 28, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Arkansas v. Sanders

Tue, 27 Feb 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1497

Petitioner

Arkansas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sanders

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 753 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, June 20, 1979

Advocates

Joseph H. Purvis (Argued the cause for the petitioner pro hac vice)

Jack T. Lassiter (By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Local police in Little Rock, Arkansas received a tip that an individual would be arriving at the airport with a suitcase containing a significant quantity of marijuana. Upon arriving, the suspect retrieved his suitcase and left in a taxi. The police officers pursued and stopped the taxi, and ordered the driver to open the trunk which revealed the suitcase in question. The police opened the suitcase without obtaining permission from its owner and found nearly ten pounds of marijuana.

Question

Did the warrantless search of the suitcase by the police violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments which prohibit unreasonable searches?

Conclusion

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

Yes. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applies to personal luggage taken from an automobile. In this case, Justice Powell applied the principle which the Court had identified in United States v. Chadwick (1977), namely, that a locked footlocker which had been loaded into a vehicle could not be opened without a warrant. Since the Little Rock police officers had exclusive control of the luggage at the time of their search, there was no danger that its contents could have been tampered with or removed before a valid warrant could have been obtained. Powell concluded that since "luggage is a common repository of one's personal effects" it is "associated with the expectation of privacy."

Montana v. United States

Mon, 04 Dec 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1134

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Montana

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 147 (1979)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1978

Decided

Thursday, February 22, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Michigan v. Doran

Wed, 04 Oct 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1202

Petitioner

Michigan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Doran

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 282 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, October 4, 1978

Decided

Monday, December 18, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Helstoski

Tue, 27 Mar 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-349

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Helstoski

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 477 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Helstoski, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 1: Speech or Debate Clause

None

FERC v. Shell Oil Co.

Mon, 15 Jan 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1652

Petitioner

Ferc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shell Oil Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Consumer Energy Council of America v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, No. 77-1654

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 192 (1979)

Argued

Monday, January 15, 1979

Decided

Thursday, February 22, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Shell Oil Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Caban v. Mohammed

Mon, 06 Nov 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-6431

Appellee

Mohammed

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Caban

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 380 (1979)

Argued

Monday, November 6, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, April 24, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Califano v. Aznavorian

Mon, 06 Nov 1978 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-991

Appellee

Aznavorian

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Califano

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 77-5999

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 170 (1978)

Argued

Monday, November 6, 1978

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-920

Petitioner

Thor Power Tool Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Commissioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 522 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, November 1, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, January 16, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Commissioner, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Califano v. Westcott

Mon, 16 Apr 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-437

Appellee

Westcott

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Califano

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 78-689

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 76 (1979)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mccombs

Thu, 22 Feb 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-17

Petitioner

United Gas Pipe Line Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mccombs

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 78-249

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 529 (1979)

Argued

Thursday, February 22, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United Gas Pipe Line Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Natural Gas, or Natural Gas Policy Acts

None

Green v. Georgia

jgoldman — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:34:25 +0000

Location

Monroe County Courthouse

1 Courthouse Square Forsyth GA 31029

Forsyth, GA 31029

United States

34° 12' 25.3512" N, 84° 8' 25.1952" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-5944

Petitioner

Roosevelt Green, Jr.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Georgia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 95 (1979)

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1979

Facts of the Case

On December 12, 1976, Roosevelt Green, Jr. and Carzell Moore allegedly raped and murdered Teresa Allen outside Macon, Georgia. Green and Moore were tried separately, and each was convicted and sentenced to death. At Green's trial, the defense introduced the testimony of Thomas Pasby, who had testified at Moore's trial. According to Pasby, Moore admitted to him that he had killed Allen alone. The trial court refused to allow Pasby's testimony, considering it to be hearsay under Georgia law. On appeal, Green argued the refusal to allow Pasby's testimony constituted a violation of his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Supreme Court of Georgia denied his claim.

Question

Did refusing to allow Pasby's testimony under Georgia's hearsay law violate Green's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Yes. In a per curiam opinion, the Court concluded that Pasby's testimony was "highly relevant to a critical issue in the punishment phase of the trial" and "substantial reasons existed to assume its reliability." Primarily, the Court noted that Georgia had permitted Pasby's testimony at Moore's trial. Thus, the state had already deemed the testimony reliable and valid.