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

Thu, 17 May 2012 22:59:57 +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