Cases - 1979 term

Idaho Ex Rel. Evans v. Oregon

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

67 ORIG

Plaintiff

Idaho Ex Rel. Evans

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Oregon

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 380 (1980)

Argued

Monday, November 26, 1979

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1980

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (as amicus curiae)

James A. Redden (on behalf of the Defendants)

Slade Gorton (on behalf of the Defendants)

David H. Leroy (on behalf of the Plaintiffs)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Idaho Ex Rel. Evans, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker

Mon, 14 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1177

Petitioner

White Mountain Apache Tribe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bracker

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

448 U.S. 136 (1980)

Argued

Monday, January 14, 1980

Decided

Friday, June 27, 1980

Advocates

Michael J. Brown (on behalf of Petitioner White Mountain Apache Tribe)

Ian A. Macpherson (on behalf of the Respondents)

Elinor Hadley Stillman (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Neil Vincent Wake (on behalf of Petitioner Pinetop Logging Company)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for White Mountain Apache Tribe, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Diamond v. Chakrabarty

Mon, 17 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-136

Petitioner

Diamond

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chakrabarty

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 303 (1980)

Argued

Monday, March 17, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1980

Advocates

Edward F. McKie, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Lawrence G. Wallace (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

After genetically engineering a bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil, Ananda Chakrabarty sought to patent his creation under Title 35 U.S.C. Section 101, providing patents for people who invent or discover "any" new and useful "manufacture" or "composition of matter." On appeal from an application rejection by a patent examiner the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirmed, stating that living things are not patentable under Section 101. When this decision was reversed by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, Diamond appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question

Is the creation of a live, human-made organism patentable under Title 35 U.S.C. Section 101?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Chakrabarty, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 35 U.S.C. 101

Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court explained that while natural laws, physical phenomena, abstract ideas, or newly discovered minerals are not patentable, a live artificially-engineered microorganism is. The creation of a bacterium that is not found anywhere in nature, constitutes a patentable "manufacture" or "composition of matter" under Section 101. Moreover, the bacterium's man-made ability to break down crude oil makes it very useful.

Exxon Corp. v. Wisconsin Dept. Of Revenue

Tue, 18 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-509

Appellee

Wisconsin Dept. Of Revenue

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Exxon Corp.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 207 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, March 18, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, June 10, 1980

Advocates

Thomas G. Ragatz (on behalf of the Appellant)

Gerald S. Wilcox (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Wisconsin Dept. Of Revenue, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Bifulco v. United States

Wed, 27 Feb 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-5010

Petitioner

Bifulco

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 381 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, February 27, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Bifulco, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 21 U.S.C. 846

None

United States v. Crews

Wed, 31 Oct 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-777

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Crews

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 463 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 31, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, March 25, 1980

Advocates

W. Gary Kohlman (on behalf of the Respondent)

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Exclusionary Rule (admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment)

None

United States v. Henry

Wed, 16 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-121

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Henry

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 264 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, January 16, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Fullilove v. Klutznick

Tue, 27 Nov 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.

78-1007

Petitioner

Fullilove

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Klutznick

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

448 U.S. 448 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, November 27, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, July 2, 1980

Advocates

Robert G. Benisch (Argued the cause for Fullilove et al)

Robert J. Hickey (Argued the cause for General Building Contractors of New York State, Inc)

Drew S. Days, III (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

In 1977, Congress enacted legislation requiring that at least 10 percent of federal funds granted for local public works programs had to be used to obtain services or supplies from businesses owned by minority group members. H. Earl Fullilove and other contractors filed suit, claiming they had been economically harmed by the enforcement of the statute. The defendant was Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary of Commerce.

Question

Did the provision of the statute for minority business enterprises violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Klutznick, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 91 Stat. 116

No. The Court held that the minority set-aside program was a legitimate exercise of congressional power. The Court found that Congress could pursue the objectives of the minority business enterprise program under the Spending Power. The plurality opinion noted that Congress could have regulated the practices of contractors on federally funded projects under the Commerce Clause as well. The Court further held that in the remedial context, Congress did not have to act "in a wholly 'color-blind' fashion."

Reeves Inc. v. Stake

Wed, 16 Apr 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-677

Petitioner

Reeves Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stake

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 429 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, April 16, 1980

Decided

Thursday, June 19, 1980

Advocates

Dennis M. Kirven (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

William J. Janklow (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

The state of South Dakota operated a cement plant. A substantial percentage of the plant's production was sold to buyers outside the state. One such customer was Reeves, Inc., a concrete distributor in Wyoming that obtained over 90 percent of its cement from the state-run plant. In 1978, for economic reasons, the South Dakota plant began supplying in-state customers before honoring other commitments. Reeves, Inc. challenged South Dakota's "hoarding" of resources.

Question

Did South Dakota's preferential system violate the Commerce Clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Stake, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court reaffirmed its holding in Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. and found that "'[n]othing in the purposes animating the Commerce Clause prohibits a State, in the absence of congressional action, from participating in the market and exercising the right to favor its own citizens over others.'" The Court found that South Dakota was acting as a "market participant" rather than a "market regulator," and was capable of withdrawing from the interstate market if an in-state shortage arose. The Court rejected arguments that cement was a "natural resource" to which South Dakota had sought to limit outside access.

NLRB v. Yeshiva University

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-857

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yeshiva University

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 78-997

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 672 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 10, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1980

Advocates

Norton J. Come (on behalf of the Petitioner in No. 78-857)

Ronald H. Shechtman (on behalf of the Petitioner in No. 78-997)

Marvin E. Frankel (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Yeshiva University, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Ferri v. Ackerman

Tue, 02 Oct 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-5981

Petitioner

Ferri

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ackerman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 193 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, October 2, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, December 4, 1979

Advocates

Julian N. Eule (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John P. Arness (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Apfelbaum

Mon, 03 Dec 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-972

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Apfelbaum

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 115 (1980)

Argued

Monday, December 3, 1979

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1980

Advocates

William C. Bryson (on behalf of the petitioner)

Joel Harvey Slomsky (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank v. Roper

Tue, 02 Oct 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-904

Petitioner

Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Roper

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 326 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, October 2, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, March 19, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Rhode Island v. Innis

Tue, 30 Oct 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Police Car

Atwells Ave and Tuxedo Avenue Providence RI 02909

Providence, RI 02909

United States

41° 49' 28.2864" N, 71° 26' 19.0392" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1076

Petitioner

Rhode Island

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Innis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 291 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, October 30, 1979

Decided

Monday, May 12, 1980

Advocates

John A. MacFadyen, III (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Dennis J. Roberts, II (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

After a picture identification by the victim of a robbery, Thomas J. Innis was arrested by police in Providence, Rhode Island. Innis was unarmed when arrested. Innis was advised of his Miranda rights and subsequently requested to speak with a lawyer. While escorting Innis to the station in a police car, three officers began discussing the shotgun involved in the robbery. One of the officers commented that there was a school for handicapped children in the area and that if one of the students found the weapon he might injure himself. Innis then interrupted and told the officers to turn the car around so he could show them where the gun was located.

Question

Did the police "interrogation" en route to the station violate Innis's Miranda rights?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Rhode Island, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miranda Warnings

No. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Miranda safeguards came into play "whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent," noting that the term "interrogation" under Miranda included "any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the subject." The Court then found that the officers' conversation did not qualify as words or actions that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit such a response from Innis.

Brown v. Louisiana

Tue, 25 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-5364

Petitioner

Brown

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 323 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, March 25, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1980

Advocates

Thomas Chester (pro hac vice)

John M. Lawrence (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Brown, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Mclain v. Real Estate Bd. Of New Orleans

Tue, 06 Nov 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1501

Petitioner

Mclain

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Real Estate Bd. Of New Orleans

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 232 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, November 6, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, January 8, 1980

Advocates

Frank H. Easterbook (as amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioners)

Harry McCall, Jr. (on behalf of the respondents)

Richard G. Vinet (on behalf of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Standefer v. United States

Mon, 14 Apr 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-383

Petitioner

Standefer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 10 (1980)

Argued

Monday, April 14, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1980

Advocates

Harold Gondelman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

William Alsup ()

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 2

None

Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. County of Los Angeles and City of Compton

Tue, 15 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1577

Petitioner

Sears, Roebuck and Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

County of Los Angeles and City of Compton

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Argued

Tuesday, January 15, 1980

Advocates

James Dexter Clark (on behalf of respondents)

Ernest J. Brown (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Andrew S. Garb (on behalf of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Central Machinery Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm'n

Mon, 14 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1604

Appellee

Arizona Tax Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Central Machinery Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

448 U.S. 160 (1980)

Argued

Monday, January 14, 1980

Decided

Friday, June 27, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Central Machinery Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Mohasco Corp. v. Silver

Tue, 25 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-616

Petitioner

Mohasco Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Silver

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 807 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, March 25, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 23, 1980

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (as amici curiae)

Judith P. Vladeck (on behalf of Respondent)

Thomas Mead Santoro (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mohasco Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co.

Wed, 19 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-116

Petitioner

Thomas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Washington Gas Light Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

448 U.S. 261 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, March 19, 1980

Decided

Friday, June 27, 1980

Advocates

Kevin Jeffrey Baldwin (on behalf of the Respondent WGLC)

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of Federal Respondent supporting the Petitioner)

James F. Green (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Thomas, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause

None

Lewis v. Bt Investment Managers, Inc.

Tue, 15 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-45

Appellee

Bt Investment Managers, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lewis

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 27 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, January 15, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Vance v. Terrazas

Tue, 30 Oct 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1143

Appellee

Terrazas

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Vance

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 252 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, October 30, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, January 15, 1980

Advocates

Allan A. Ryan, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellant)

Kenneth K. Ditkowsky (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Vance, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Robert Michael Fungaroli v. Judith Diane Fungaroli

Wed, 16 Apr 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-492

Petitioner

Robert Michael Fungaroli

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Judith Diane Fungaroli

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Argued

Wednesday, April 16, 1980

Advocates

B. Ervin Brown, II (on behalf of the Appellee)

John F. Morrow (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc.

Wed, 19 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-253

Appellee

Jerrico, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Marshall

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 238 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, March 19, 1980

Decided

Monday, April 28, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Marshall, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Carbon Fuel Co. v. Mine Workers

Mon, 05 Nov 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1183

Petitioner

Carbon Fuel Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mine Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 212 (1979)

Argued

Monday, November 5, 1979

Decided

Monday, December 10, 1979

Advocates

Harrison Coombs (On behalf of United Mine Workers of America, et al)

David D. Johnson (On behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mine Workers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Adams v. Texas

Mon, 24 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-5175

Petitioner

Adams

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Texas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

448 U.S. 38 (1980)

Argued

Monday, March 24, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, June 25, 1980

Advocates

Melvyn Carson Bruder (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Douglas M. Becker (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Brown v. Glines

Tue, 06 Nov 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1006

Petitioner

Brown

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Glines

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 348 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, November 6, 1979

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1980

Advocates

David M. Cobin (as Court appointed Counsel for Respondent)

Kent L. Jones (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Brown, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Supreme Court Of Va. v. Consumers Union

Tue, 19 Feb 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-198

Appellee

Consumers Union

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Supreme Court Of Va.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 719 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, February 19, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Supreme Court Of Va., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

California Liquor Dealers v. Midcal Aluminum

Wed, 16 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-97

Petitioner

California Liquor Dealers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Midcal Aluminum

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 97 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, January 16, 1980

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Midcal Aluminum, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

Wed, 03 Oct 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1078

Petitioner

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Woodson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 286 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 3, 1979

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Schaumburg v. Citizens For Better Environment

Tue, 30 Oct 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Schaumburg Village Hall

101 Schaumburg Court Schaumburg IL 60193

Schaumburg, IL 60193

United States

42° 1' 36.6744" N, 88° 4' 7.0968" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1335

Petitioner

Schaumburg

Respondent

Citizens For Better Environment

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 620 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, October 30, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1980

Advocates

Jack M. Siegel (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Milton I. Shadur (on behalf of the Respondents)

Adam Yarmolinsky (on behalf of the amici curiae)

Facts of the Case

The Village of Schaumburg Illinois adopted an ordinance that prohibited charitable organizations from soliciting contributions in public areas without a permit. Permits were only granted to organizations that could demonstrate that 75 percent of their receipts were applied towards "charitable purposes." Citizens for Better Environment, a nonprofit tax-exempt organization, was denied a permit because it did not satisfy the 75-percent requirement. CBE sued in federal district court, which ruled in their favor. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed this ruling.

Question

Was Schaumburg's ordinance "overbroad" and therefore in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Citizens For Better Environ., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. In an 8-1 opinion, the Court held that charitable solicitation is not purely commercial speech and is closely related to forms of protected speech such as advocacy. Justice Byron R. White, who authored the majority opinion, argued that "it is clear" that charitable solicitations are protected. While Schaumburg had an interest in preventing fraud, the ordinance did not fully serve that interest, which could be accomplished through alternate means. The ordinance in question also barred legitimate organizations from soliciting contributions. Schaumburg's interest did not justify the ordinance's "interference with protected speech,",which was therefore unconstitutional.

Maher v. Gagne

Wed, 09 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1888

Petitioner

Maher

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gagne

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

448 U.S. 122 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, January 9, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, June 25, 1980

Advocates

Joan E. Pilver (on behalf of the Respondent)

Edmund C. Walsh (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Gagne, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

Ohio v. Kentucky

Mon, 03 Dec 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

27 ORIG

Plaintiff

Ohio

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Kentucky

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 335 (1980)

Argued

Monday, December 3, 1979

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1980

Advocates

James M. Ringo (on behalf of the Defendant)

Michael R. Szolosi (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Euge

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1453

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Euge

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 707 (1980)

Argued

Monday, November 26, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1980

Advocates

James W. Erwin (on behalf of the Respondent)

Stuart A. Smith (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Ins. Co.

Mon, 25 Feb 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-381

Appellee

Druggists Mutual Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Wengler

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 142 (1980)

Argued

Monday, February 25, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, April 22, 1980

Advocates

Ralph C. Kleinschmidt (on behalf of the Appellees)

John W. Reid, II (On behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Roberts v. United States

Mon, 14 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1793

Petitioner

Roberts

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 552 (1980)

Argued

January 14-15, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, April 15, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Maine v. Thiboutot

Tue, 22 Apr 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-838

Petitioner

Maine

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thiboutot

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

448 U.S. 1 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, April 22, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, June 25, 1980

Advocates

Robert Edmond Mittel (on behalf of Respondents)

James Eastman Smith (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Carlson, v. Green

Mon, 07 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1261

Petitioner

Carlson,

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Green

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 14 (1980)

Argued

Monday, January 7, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, April 22, 1980

Advocates

Michael E. Deutsch (on behalf of the Respondent)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Green, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Tort Claims, or Alien Tort Statute

None

Perrin v. United States

Wed, 03 Oct 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-959

Petitioner

Perrin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 37 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, October 3, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, November 27, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1952

None

Hicks v. Oklahoma

Wed, 26 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-6885

Petitioner

Hicks

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oklahoma

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 343 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, March 26, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1980

Advocates

David M. Ebel (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Janet L. Cox (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. California

Mon, 17 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Rincon Island CA

United States

34° 20' 8.394" N, 119° 24' 26.3664" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

5 ORIG

Plaintiff

United States

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

California

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 1 (1980)

Argued

Monday, March 17, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1980

Advocates

Stephen M. Shapiro (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

John Briscoe (on behalf of the Defendant)

Facts of the Case

Rincon Island is artificial island off the coast of Ventura County, California and is connected to the mainland via a causeway. Additionally, there are 15 piers on the coastline. The Submerged Lands Act of 1953 granted to California all land and resources within three miles of the coastline. California and the United States disputed over whether the island and piers were included in this coastline. A special master was appointed to resolve this dispute. The Special Master found that the island and piers did not affect the shoreline, and were therefore not extensions of the coastline. California filed an exception to the Master's finding.

Question

Do man-made piers and islands qualify as "coast line" under the Submerged Lands Act of 1953?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Submerged Lands Acts

No. In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the Court held that the special master's determination was correct. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger acknowledged the ambiguity in the Submerged Lands Act. However, since the piers and island in dispute did not provide protection, they did not qualify as "harbor works" that would have extended the coastline.

Aaron v. SEC

Mon, 25 Feb 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-66

Petitioner

Aaron

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Securities and Exchange Commission

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 680 (1980)

Argued

Monday, February 25, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1980

Advocates

Barry M. Fallick (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Ralph C. Ferrara (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Board Of Regents v. Tomanio

Tue, 26 Feb 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-424

Petitioner

Board Of Regents

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tomanio

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 478 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, February 26, 1980

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1980

Advocates

Vincent J. Mutari (on behalf of the Respondent)

Donald O. Meserve (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Board Of Regents, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians

Mon, 24 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Great Sioux Indian Reservation SD

United States

44° 31' 12" N, 101° 59' 9.96" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-639

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sioux Nation of Indians

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

448 U.S. 371 (1980)

Argued

Monday, March 24, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 30, 1980

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States)

Arthur Lazarus Jr. (argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

In the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, the United States granted the Sioux Indian Nation the Great Sioux Reservation, including the Black Hills of South Dakota. Congress reneged in 1877, passing an act that reclaimed the Black Hills. The Sioux Nation requested compensation in 1920. The United States Court of Claims ruled against the Sioux Nation in 1942. Congress then established the Indian Claims Commission in 1946. The Commission ruled that the Sioux Nation was not barred by the Court of Claims decision and ruled that Congress used its powers of eminent domain in 1877 and the Sioux were therefore entitled to compensation. The Court of Claims maintained that the Sioux were barred by their first case. Congress amended the Indian Claims Commission Act in 1978, removing the judicial bar. The Court of Claims then held that the Sioux were entitled to $17.1 million.

Question

(1) Was Congress' 1978 amendment a violation of separation of powers?

(2) Was the reclamation of land in 1877 a taking of property requiring compensation under the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Sioux Nation Of Indians, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 25 U.S.C. 70

No and yes. In an 8-1 decision, the Court held that Congress did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers and affirmed the Court of Claims decision. Writing for the majority, Justice Harry A. Blackmun noted a similar situation in Nock v. United States, where a congressional exemption from a judicial bar was ruled not to be in violation of separation of powers and upheld by the Court. Additionally, since Congress "had not made a good-faith effort to give the Sioux the full value of the Black Hills," Congress' 1877 action qualified as use of its eminent domain power under Three Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. United States. Therefore, the Sioux were entitled to compensation under the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice Byron R. White wrote an opinion concurring in part and in the judgment.

NLRB v. Retail Store Employees

Tue, 15 Apr 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-672

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Retail Store Employees

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 607 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, April 15, 1980

Decided

Friday, June 20, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for NLRB, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Rush v. Savchuk

Wed, 03 Oct 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-952

Appellee

Savchuk

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Rush

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 320 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 3, 1979

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1980

Advocates

Edward H. Borkon (on behalf of the Appellee)

Oscar C. Adamson, II (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Busic v. United States

Wed, 27 Feb 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-6020

Petitioner

Busic

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 78-6029

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 398 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, February 27, 1980

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Busic, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets, National Firearms, Organized Crime Control, Comprehensive Crime Control, or Gun Control Acts, except for RICO (q.v.) portion

None

Chiarella v. United States

Mon, 05 Nov 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1202

Petitioner

Chiarella

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 222 (1980)

Argued

Monday, November 5, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, March 18, 1980

Advocates

Stephen M. Shapiro (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Stanley S. Arkin (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Petitioner Vincent Chiarella worked in the composing room of Pandick Press (Pandick), a financial printer. An acquiring corporation hired Pandick to produce announcements of corporate takeover bids. Although the identities of the acquiring and target corporations were concealed, Chiarella was able to deduce the names of the target companies. Without disclosing his knowledge, Chiarella purchased stock in the target companies and sold the shares immediately after the takeover bids were made public. Chiarella realized slightly more than $30,000 in profits from his trading activities. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) then investigated Chiarella's trading activities. Chiarella entered into a consent decree with the SEC in which he agreed to return the profits he made to the sellers of the shares. A few months later, Chiarella was indicted on seventeen counts of violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act) and SEC Rule 10b-5. Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act prohibits the use "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security" of "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the [SEC] may prescribe." Rule 10b-5, promulgated under Section 10(b), makes it unlawful for any person to "employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud . . . in connection with the purchase or sale of any security." Chiarella was convicted at trial and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed his conviction.

Question

Did Chiarella violate Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act by failing to disclose the impending takeover before trading in the target company's securities?

Conclusion

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

No. A duty to disclose information arises if there is a relationship of trust and confidence between parties to the transaction. Chiarella had no such duty. He was not a corporate insider in the acquiring corporation and he did not receive confidential information from the target company. He also had no fiduciary relationship with the shareholders of the target company: he was not their agent; they placed no trust or confidence in him; indeed, they had no prior dealings with him. A duty to disclose under Section 10(b) does not arise from the mere possession of nonpublic market information.

Ohio v. Roberts

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-756

Petitioner

Ohio

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Roberts

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

448 U.S. 56 (1980)

Argued

Monday, November 26, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, June 25, 1980

Advocates

Marvin R. Plasco (on behalf of the respondent)

John E. Shoop (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Ohio, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

None

Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v. Gte Sylvania

Mon, 14 Apr 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-521

Petitioner

Consumer Product Safety Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gte Sylvania

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 102 (1980)

Argued

Monday, April 14, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Gte Sylvania, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 2055

None

Texas v. New Mexico

Mon, 24 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

65 ORIG

Plaintiff

Texas

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

New Mexico

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 540 (1980)

Argued

Monday, March 24, 1980

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1980

Advocates

Douglas G. Caroom (on behalf of Plaintiff)

Richard A. Simms (on behalf of Defendant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Navarro Savings Assn. v. Lee

Tue, 18 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-465

Petitioner

Navarro Savings Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 458 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, March 18, 1980

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Martinez v. California

Mon, 05 Nov 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1268

Appellee

California

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Martinez

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 277 (1980)

Argued

Monday, November 5, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, January 15, 1980

Advocates

Jeffrey T. Miller (on behalf of the Appellees)

Donald McGrath, II (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Estes v. Metropolitan Branches, Dallas NAACP

Mon, 29 Oct 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-253

Petitioner

Estes

Respondent

Metropolitan Branches, Dallas NAACP

Consolidation

No. 78-282

No. 78-283

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 437 (1980)

Argued

Monday, October 29, 1979

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1980

Advocates

Edward B. Cloutman, III (on behalf of Respondents Tasby et al)

E. Brice Cunningham (on behalf of the Respondents, NAACP et al)

Robert L. Blumenthal (on behalf of Petitioners, Curry et al)

James A. Donohoe (on behalf of Petitioners, Brinegar et al)

Lawrence G. Wallace (as amicus curiae, supporting Respondents)

Warren Whitham (on behalf of Petitioners, Estes et al)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Metropolitan Branches, Dallas NAACP, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper

Tue, 15 Apr 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-701

Petitioner

Roadway Express, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Piper

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 752 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, April 15, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 23, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Piper, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1927

None

Bloomer v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.

Tue, 04 Dec 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1418

Petitioner

Bloomer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 74 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, December 4, 1979

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1980

Advocates

Douglas A. Boeckmann (on behalf of the respondent)

Alan C. Rassner (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation

None

Jenkins v. Anderson

Tue, 08 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-6809

Petitioner

Jenkins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Anderson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 231 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, January 8, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, June 10, 1980

Advocates

Carl Ziemba (for Petitioner)

Robert A. Derengoski (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Costle v. Pacific Legal Foundation

Wed, 05 Dec 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1472

Petitioner

Costle

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pacific Legal Foundation

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 198 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, December 5, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, March 18, 1980

Advocates

Robert K. Best (on behalf of the Respondents)

William Alsup (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Costle, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water), plus amendments

None

Ybarra v. Illinois

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-5937

Appellee

Illinois

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Ybarra

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 85 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, October 9, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, November 28, 1979

Advocates

Melbourne A. Noel, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellee)

Alan D. Goldberg (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lewis v. United States

Mon, 07 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1595

Petitioner

Lewis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 55 (1980)

Argued

Monday, January 7, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, February 27, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets, National Firearms, Organized Crime Control, Comprehensive Crime Control, or Gun Control Acts, except for RICO (q.v.) portion

None

United States v. Clark

Wed, 31 Oct 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1513

Appellee

Clark

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 23 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 31, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, February 26, 1980

Advocates

Edward L. Merrigan (on behalf of the Appellees)

Harriet S. Shapiro (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Clark, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 8331

None

Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:55:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-797

Petitioner

Crown Simpson Pulp Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Costle

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 193 (1980)

Decided

Monday, March 17, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Crown Simpson Pulp Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water), plus amendments

None

PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins

Tue, 18 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Location

The Pruneyard

1875 South Bascom Avenue Campbell CA 95008

Campbell, CA 95008

United States

37° 17' 19.0212" N, 121° 55' 59.6136" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-289

Appellee

Robins

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

PruneYard Shopping Center

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 74 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, March 18, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1980

Advocates

Elinor Hadley Stillman (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance)

Philip L. Hammer (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Max L. Gillam (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

High school students seeking support for their opposition to a United Nations resolution against Zionism set up a table in PruneYard to distribute literature and solicit signatures for a petition. A security guard told them to leave since their actions violated the shopping center's regulations against "publicly expressive" activities.

Question

Did PruneYard's regulations violate the students' free speech rights?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Robins, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

Yes. Since the California Constitution protected "speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the shopping centers are privately owned," PruneYard could not prevent the students from soliciting on its property. The Court argued that it was within California's power to guarantee this expansive free speech right since it did not unreasonably intrude on the rights of private property owners.

O'bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center

Tue, 06 Nov 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1318

Petitioner

O'bannon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Town Court Nursing Center

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 773 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, November 6, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 23, 1980

Advocates

Nathan L. Posner (on behalf of the Respondents)

Norman J. Watkins (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard A. Allen (on behalf of the Respondent Secretary of HEW, supporting Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Cuyler v. Sullivan

Wed, 20 Feb 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1832

Petitioner

Cuyler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sullivan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 335 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, February 20, 1980

Decided

Monday, May 12, 1980

Advocates

Marilyn J. Gelb (on behalf of the respondent)

Steven H. Goldblatt (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Cuyler, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

United States v. Ward

Tue, 26 Feb 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-394

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ward

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

448 U.S. 242 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, February 26, 1980

Decided

Friday, June 27, 1980

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Stephen Jones (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water), plus amendments

None

Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Ser v. Comm'n

Mon, 17 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-134

Appellee

Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Ser

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 530 (1980)

Argued

Monday, March 17, 1980

Decided

Friday, June 20, 1980

Advocates

Joseph D. Block (on behalf of the appellant)

Peter H. Schiff (on behalf of the appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Ser, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Hatzlachh Supply Co. v. United States

Wed, 05 Dec 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1175

Petitioner

Hatzlachh Supply Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 460 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, December 5, 1979

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1980

Advocates

Kent L. Jones (on behalf of the Respondent)

Nathan Lewin (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Hatzlachh Supply Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Tort Claims, or Alien Tort Statute

None

Vance v. Universal Amusement Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1588

Appellee

Universal Amusement Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Vance

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 308 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, November 28, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, March 18, 1980

Advocates

Lonny F. Zwiener (on behalf of the Appellants)

Frierson M. Graves, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp. v. Shell Oil Co

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1651

Petitioner

Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shell Oil Co

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 572 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, November 28, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 46 U.S.C. 1156

None

Beck v. Alabama

Wed, 20 Feb 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-6621

Petitioner

Beck

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alabama

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 625 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, February 20, 1980

Decided

Friday, June 20, 1980

Advocates

Edward E. Carnes (for Respondent)

David Klingsberg (for Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Harrison v. Ppg Industries, Inc.

Wed, 16 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1918

Petitioner

Harrison

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ppg Industries, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 578 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, January 16, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, May 27, 1980

Advocates

Charles F. Lettow (on behalf of the Respondents)

Maryann Walsh (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Harrison, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clean Air

None

Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co.

Mon, 14 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-105

Petitioner

Curtiss-Wright Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

General Electric Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 1 (1980)

Argued

Monday, January 14, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, April 22, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert

Mon, 03 Dec 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1327

Petitioner

Boeing Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Van Gemert

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 472 (1980)

Argued

Monday, December 3, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, February 19, 1980

Advocates

S. Hazard Gillespie (on behalf of Petitioners)

Norman Winer (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Bailey

Wed, 07 Nov 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-990

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bailey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 394 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, November 7, 1979

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1980

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard S. Kohn (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 751

None

Godfrey v. Georgia

Wed, 20 Feb 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-6899

Petitioner

Godfrey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Georgia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 420 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, February 20, 1980

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1980

Advocates

J. Calloway Holmes, Jr. (for Petitioner)

John W. Dunsmore, Jr. (for Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Godfrey, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

None

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner Of Taxes

Wed, 07 Nov 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1201

Appellee

Commissioner Of Taxes

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mobil Oil Corp.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 425 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, November 7, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, March 19, 1980

Advocates

Richard Johnston King (on behalf of the Appellee)

Jerome R. Hellerstein (on behalf of the Appellant)

William D. Dexter (as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Commissioner Of Taxes, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Goldwater v. Carter

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:55:13 +0000

Location

White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington DC 20500

Washington, DC 20500

United States

38° 53' 51.5796" N, 77° 2' 11.6304" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-856

Petitioner

Goldwater

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Carter

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 996 (1979)

Decided

Thursday, December 13, 1979

Facts of the Case

President Jimmy Carter acted without congressional approval in ending a defense treaty with Taiwan.

Question

Did Congress have a constitutional role to play in the termination of the treaty?

Conclusion

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

Without oral argument ,the divided justices found that the case was not justiciable. Rehnquist led a group of four others who believed that the issue involved a political question, namely, how the President and Congress would conduct the nation's foreign affairs. Justice Powell did not find the case ripe for judicial review. He reasoned that since Congress had not formally challenged Carter's authority, technically there was no conflict for the Court to resolve. The dissenters were prepared to hear the case.

Kaiser Aetna v. United States

Mon, 01 Oct 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-738

Petitioner

Kaiser Aetna

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 164 (1979)

Argued

Monday, October 1, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, December 4, 1979

Advocates

Richard Charles Bocken (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Kathryn A. Oberly (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Whalen v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-5471

Petitioner

Whalen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 684 (1980)

Argued

November 27-28, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, April 16, 1980

Advocates

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of Respondent)

Silas W. Wasserstrom (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Agins v. Tiburon

Tue, 15 Apr 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-602

Appellee

Tiburon

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Agins

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 255 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, April 15, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, June 10, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Tiburon, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

United States v. Raddatz

Mon, 25 Feb 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-8

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Raddatz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 667 (1980)

Argued

Monday, February 25, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 23, 1980

Advocates

Joan B. Gottschall (on behalf of the Respondent)

Andrew J. Levander (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 636

None

Williams v. Zbaraz

Mon, 21 Apr 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-4

Petitioner

Zbaraz

Respondent

Williams

Consolidation

No. 79-5

No. 79-491

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

448 U.S. 358 (1980)

Argued

Monday, April 21, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 30, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

California Brewers Assn. v. Bryant

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1548

Petitioner

California Brewers Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bryant

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 598 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, November 27, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1980

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: 4 votes for California Brewers Assn., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

United States v. Salvucci

Wed, 26 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-244

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Salvucci

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

448 U.S. 83 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, March 26, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, June 25, 1980

Advocates

John C. McBride (on behalf of Respondent Zackular)

Willie J. Davis (on behalf of Respondent Salvucci)

Mark I. Levy (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Gillock

Tue, 04 Dec 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1455

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gillock

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 360 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, December 4, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, March 19, 1980

Advocates

Wade H. McCree (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James V. Doramus (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Evidence

None

Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp.

Mon, 07 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1557

Petitioner

Nachman Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pension Benefit Guar. Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 359 (1980)

Argued

Monday, January 7, 1980

Decided

Monday, May 12, 1980

Advocates

Henry Rose (on behalf of the Respondent)

Robert W. Gettleman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

M. Jay Whitman (on behalf of Respondent UAW)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Carey v. Brown

Tue, 15 Apr 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-703

Appellee

Brown

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Carey

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 455 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, April 15, 1980

Decided

Friday, June 20, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Trammel v. United States

Mon, 29 Oct 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-5705

Petitioner

Trammel

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 40 (1980)

Argued

October 29-30, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, February 27, 1980

Advocates

Wade H. McCree (on behalf of the Respondent)

J. Terry Wiggins (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Board Of Education, New York City v. Harris

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-873

Petitioner

Board Of Education, New York City

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Harris

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 130 (1979)

Argued

October 9-10, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, November 28, 1979

Advocates

Joseph F. Bruno (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Wade H. McCree (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Harris, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 20 U.S.C. 1601

None

United States v. Kubrick

Wed, 03 Oct 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1014

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kubrick

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 111 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, October 3, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, November 28, 1979

Advocates

Benjamin Kuby (on behalf of the Respondent)

Elinor Hadley Stillman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Tort Claims, or Alien Tort Statute

None

City Of Rome v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1840

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

City Of Rome

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 156 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 10, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, April 22, 1980

Advocates

Robert M. Brinson (on behalf of the Appellants)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Industrial Union Dept. v. Amer. Petroleum Inst.

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

Location

U.S. Department of Labor

"200 Constitution Ave.**** NW" Washington DC 20210

Washington, DC 20210

United States

38° 53' 31.4232" N, 77° 0' 49.1184" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-911

Petitioner

Industrial Union Dept.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Amer. Petroleum Inst.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 78-1036

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

448 U.S. 607 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 10, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, July 2, 1980

Advocates

George H. Cohen (Argued the cause for Industrial Union Dept)

Charles F. Lettow (Argued the cause for the respondents, Rubber Manufacturers Association, Inc., in both cases)

Edward W. Warren (Argued the cause for the respondent, American Petroleum Institute, in both cases)

William Alsup (Argued the cause for the petitioner, Marshall, in 78-1036)

Facts of the Case

Acting under authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Secretary of Labor, after having demonstrated a link between exposure to benzene and leukemia, set a standard reducing the airborne concentrations of benzene to which workers could be exposed. The standard reduced the allowable amount from 10 parts per million (ppm) to one ppm. This case was decided together with Marshall v. American Petroleum Institute.

Question

Did the Secretary exceed his authority to set standards?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Amer. Petroleum Inst., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Occupational Safety and Health

Yes. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the Secretary had acted without knowledge that the new standard was necessary to "provide safe and healthful employment" as mandated by the Act. Nothing in OSHA's administrative record indicated that exposure to benzene at 10 ppm would cause leukemia and that exposure to one ppm would not. Since the Secretary had not made a threshold finding that exposure to 10 ppm posed significant health risks, he was powerless to promulgate the new standard.

United States v. Havens

Wed, 19 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-305

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Havens

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 620 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, March 19, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, May 27, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Exclusionary Rule (admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment)

None

Walter v. United States

Tue, 26 Feb 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-67

Petitioner

Walter

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 79-148

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 649 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, February 26, 1980

Decided

Friday, June 20, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Baldasar v. Illinois

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-6219

Petitioner

Baldasar

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 222 (1980)

Argued

Monday, November 26, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, April 22, 1980

Advocates

Michael Mulder (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Michael B. Weinstein (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Andrus v. Idaho

Mon, 25 Feb 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-260

Petitioner

Andrus

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Idaho

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 715 (1980)

Argued

Monday, February 25, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, April 16, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Andrus, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Rummel v. Estelle

Mon, 07 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Location

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division

655 East Durango Blvd. San Antonio TX 78206

San Antonio, TX 78206

United States

29° 25' 5.016" N, 98° 29' 10.0032" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-6386

Petitioner

Rummel

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Estelle

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 263 (1980)

Argued

Monday, January 7, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, March 18, 1980

Advocates

Douglas M. Becker (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Scott J. Atlas (By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

After being convicted of three felonies over a period of fifteen years, William James Rummel was given a life prison sentence as mandated by a Texas recidivist statute. Rummel's offenses involved approximately $230, and all of the offenses were nonviolent. Lower courts rejected Rummel's challenge to the sentence.

Question

Did Rummel's life sentence under the Texas recidivist law constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the life sentence imposed by Texas law did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court held that Texas had a significant interest in dealing "in a harsher manner with those who by repeated criminal acts have shown that they are simply incapable of conforming to the norms of society." The Court also noted that Texas had "a relatively liberal policy of granting 'good time' credits to its prisoners," indicating that there was a possibility that Rummel would not be imprisoned for the rest of his life.

United States v. Mendenhall

Tue, 19 Feb 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1821

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mendenhall

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 544 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, February 19, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, May 27, 1980

Advocates

F. Randall Karfonta (on behalf of the Respondent)

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of the Petitioner)

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

United States v. Louisiana

Tue, 18 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

9 ORIG

Plaintiff

United States

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 253 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, March 18, 1980

Decided

Monday, April 28, 1980

Advocates

Frederick W. Ellis (on behalf of the Defendants)

Louis F. Claiborne (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

William J. Guste, Jr. (on behalf of the Defendants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 43 U.S.C. 1336

None

American Export Lines, Inc. v. Alvez

Tue, 26 Feb 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1

Petitioner

American Export Lines, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alvez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 274 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, February 26, 1980

Decided

Monday, May 12, 1980

Advocates

Stephen K. Carr (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Paul C. Matthews (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Alvez, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Walker v. Armco Steel Corp.

Tue, 08 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1862

Petitioner

Walker

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Armco Steel Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 740 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, January 8, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1980

Advocates

Don Manners (on behalf of Petitioner)

Jay M. Galt (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Coffy v. Republic Steel Corp.

Wed, 27 Feb 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-81

Petitioner

Coffy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Republic Steel Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 191 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, February 27, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, June 10, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Coffy, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 2021

None

United States v. Clarke

Tue, 15 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1693

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Clarke

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 253 (1980)

Argued

January 15-16, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, March 18, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 25 U.S.C. 357

None

Massachusetts v. Meehan

Wed, 09 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1874

Petitioner

Massachusetts

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Meehan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 39 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, January 9, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, February 26, 1980

Advocates

David A. Mills (on behalf of the Respondent)

Barbara A. H. Smith (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Harris v. McRae

Mon, 21 Apr 1980 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.

79-1268

Appellee

McRae

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Harris

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

448 U.S. 297 (1980)

Argued

Monday, April 21, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 30, 1980

Advocates

Rhonda Copelon (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Wade H. McCree (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Facts of the Case

In 1965, Congress established the Medicaid program, via Title XIX of the Social Security Act, to provide federal financial assistance to states that chose to reimburse certain costs of medical treatment for needy persons. Beginning in 1976, Congress passed a number of versions of the "Hyde Amendment" that severely limited the use of federal funds to reimburse the cost of abortions under the Medicaid program. Cora McRae, a pregnant Medicaid recipient, challenged the Amendment and took action against Patricia R. Harris, Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Question

Did the Hyde Amendment violate the right to privacy, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, or the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Harris, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Medicaid--provisions of the Social Security Act

No. The Court held that states participating in the Medicaid program were not obligated to fund medically necessary abortions under Title XIX. The Court found that a woman's freedom of choice did not carry with it "a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices." The Court ruled that because the Equal Protection Clause was not a source of substantive rights and because poverty did not qualify as a "suspect classification," the Hyde Amendment did not violate the Fifth Amendment. Finally, the Court held that the coincidence of the funding restrictions of the statute with tenets of the Roman Catholic Church did not constitute an establishment of religion.

Owen v. City Of Independence

Tue, 08 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1779

Petitioner

Owen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

City Of Independence

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 622 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, January 8, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, April 16, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Owen, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Gomez v. Toledo

Wed, 16 Apr 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-5601

Petitioner

Gomez

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Toledo

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 635 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, April 16, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, May 27, 1980

Advocates

Michael Avery (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Federico Cedo Alzamora (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Gomez, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Sun Ship, Inc. v. Pennsylvania

Mon, 14 Apr 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-343

Appellee

Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Sun Ship, Inc.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 715 (1980)

Argued

Monday, April 14, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 23, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Secretary Of Navy v. Huff

Tue, 06 Nov 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-599

Petitioner

Secretary Of Navy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Huff

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 453 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, November 6, 1979

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1980

Advocates

Kent L. Jones (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Alan Dranitzke (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Secretary Of Navy, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

United States v. Mitchell

Mon, 03 Dec 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1756

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mitchell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 535 (1980)

Argued

Monday, December 3, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, April 15, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 25 U.S.C. 331

None

Andrus v. Shell Oil Co.

Tue, 15 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1815

Petitioner

Andrus

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shell Oil Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 657 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, January 15, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1980

Advocates

Fowler Hamilton (on behalf of the Respondents)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Shell Oil Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 30 U.S.C. 181

None

Andrus v. Allard

Mon, 01 Oct 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-740

Appellee

Allard

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Andrus

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 51 (1979)

Argued

Monday, October 1, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, November 27, 1979

Advocates

Harriet S. Shapiro (For the Appellants)

John P. Akolt, III (For the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Andrus, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

General Telephone Co. v. EEOC

Tue, 25 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-488

Petitioner

General Telephone Co.

Respondent

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 318 (1980)

Argued

March 25-26, 1980

Decided

Monday, May 12, 1980

Advocates

James R. Dickens (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for EEOC, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey

Tue, 19 Feb 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-192

Petitioner

New York Gaslight Club, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Carey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 54 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, February 19, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1980

Advocates

James I. Meyerson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Albert N. Proujansky (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Harriet S. Shapiro (as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Andrus v. Glover Construction Co.

Mon, 24 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-48

Petitioner

Andrus

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Glover Construction Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 608 (1980)

Argued

Monday, March 24, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, May 27, 1980

Advocates

D. D. Hayes (on behalf of the Respondent)

Andrew J. Levander (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Glover Construction Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 25 U.S.C. 47

None

Washington v. Confederated Tribes

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-630

Appellee

Confederated Tribes

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Washington

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 78-60

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 134 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, October 9, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, June 10, 1980

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (on behalf of the Appellees)

James B. Hovis (on behalf of the Appellees)

Slade Gorton (on behalf of the Appellants)

Steven S. Anderson (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Washington, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2281

None

United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty

Tue, 02 Oct 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-572

Petitioner

United States Parole Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Geraghty

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 388 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, October 2, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, March 19, 1980

Advocates

Kent L. Jones (on behalf of the petitioners)

Kenneth N. Flaxman (on behalf of respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States Parole Comm'n, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin

Tue, 04 Dec 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1487

Petitioner

Ford Motor Credit Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Milhollin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 555 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, December 4, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1980

Advocates

William M. Burke (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Richard A. Slottee (on behalf of the Respondents)

Stuart A. Smith (as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Ford Motor Credit Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Truth in Lending

None

Illinois v. Vitale

Tue, 08 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1845

Petitioner

Illinois

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Vitale

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 410 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, January 8, 1980

Decided

Thursday, June 19, 1980

Advocates

James S. Veldman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lawrence G. Dirksen (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Rawlings v. Kentucky

Wed, 26 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-5146

Petitioner

Rawlings

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kentucky

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

448 U.S. 98 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, March 26, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, June 25, 1980

Advocates

Victor Fox (on behalf of the Respondent)

J. Vincent Aprile, II (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

NLRB v. Longshoremen

Tue, 22 Apr 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1082

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Longshoremen

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 490 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, April 22, 1980

Decided

Friday, June 20, 1980

Advocates

Thomas W. Gleason (on behalf of Respondents)

Constantine P. Lambos (on behalf of Respondents)

J. Alan Lips (on behalf of Petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Longshoremen, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Andrus v. Utah

Wed, 05 Dec 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1522

Petitioner

Andrus

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Utah

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 500 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, December 5, 1979

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1980

Advocates

Peter Buscemi (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard L. Dewsnup (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Andrus, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 43 U.S.C. 315

None

Snepp v. United States

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:55:18 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1871

Petitioner

Snepp

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

United States v. Snepp, No. 79-265

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 507 (1980)

Decided

Tuesday, February 19, 1980

Facts of the Case

Upon accepting employment in the CIA in 1968, Snepp signed an agreement with the Agency that he would not publish any information during or after his term of employment relating to the Agency's activities without first obtaining Agency approval. Snepp published a book about CIA activities in South Vietnam without first submitting his manuscript to the Agency for review. A lower court denied Snepp royalties from his book for his failure to secure approval.

Question

Were Snepp's First Amendment rights violated?

Conclusion

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

No. The Court upheld the lower court's ruling and agreed that Snepp had breached the "constructive trust" between him and the government. That was especially significant in this case since this type of violation by a former agent "impairs the CIA's ability to perform its statutory duties" and potentially jeopardizes the safety of current government operatives and Snepp himself. The Court reached this decision without hearing oral argument by the parties.

Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia

Tue, 19 Feb 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Circuit Court of Hanover County

7507 Library Dr Hanover VA 23069

Hanover, VA 23069

United States

37° 45' 48.6288" N, 77° 21' 56.9484" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-243

Petitioner

Richmond Newspapers Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Virginia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

448 U.S. 555 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, February 19, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, July 2, 1980

Advocates

Marshall Coleman (Argued the cause for the appellees)

J. Marshall Coleman (on behalf of Virginia, et al)

Laurence H. Tribe (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

After a series of mistrials in a murder case in the state of Virginia, a trial judge closed the trial to the public and the media. Defense counsel brought the closure motion; the prosecution did not object. Two reporters of Richmond Newspapers, Inc. challenged the judge's action.

Question

Did the closure of the trial to the press and public violate the First Amendment or the Sixth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

In a 7-to-1 decision, the Court held that the right to attend criminal trials was "implicit in the guarantees of the First Amendment." The Court held that the First Amendment encompassed not only the right to speak but also the freedom to listen and to receive information and ideas. The Court also noted that the First Amendment guaranteed the right of assembly in public places such as courthouses. The Court emphasized that "certain unarticulated rights" were implicit in enumerated guarantees and were often "indispensable to the enjoyment of rights explicitly defined."

Branti v. Finkel

Tue, 04 Dec 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1654

Petitioner

Branti

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Finkel

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 507 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, December 4, 1979

Decided

Monday, March 31, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Vitek v. Jones

Wed, 05 Dec 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1155

Appellee

Jones

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Vitek

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 480 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, December 5, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, March 25, 1980

Advocates

Melvin Kent Kammerlohr (on behalf of the appellants)

Thomas A. Wurtz (on behalf of the appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Vaughn v. Vermilion Corp.

Mon, 01 Oct 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1819

Petitioner

Vaughn

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Vermilion Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 206 (1979)

Argued

Monday, October 1, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, December 4, 1979

Advocates

Harry McCall, Jr. (on behalf of the respondent)

John K. Hill, Jr. (on behalf of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bryant v. Yellen

Tue, 25 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-421

Petitioner

Bryant

Respondent

Yellen

Consolidation

No. 79-425

No. 79-435

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 352 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, March 25, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1980

Advocates

Northcutt Ely (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Charles W. Bender (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Arthur Brunwasser (on behalf of the Respondents)

Wade H. McCree (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bryant, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 43 U.S.C. 617

None

Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co.

Mon, 21 Apr 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-669

Petitioner

Dawson Chemical Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rohm & Haas Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

448 U.S. 176 (1980)

Argued

Monday, April 21, 1980

Decided

Friday, June 27, 1980

Advocates

Ned L. Conley (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Eugene L. Bernard (as amici curiae)

Rudolf E. Hutz (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rohm & Haas Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 35 U.S.C. 271

None

United States v. Payner

Wed, 20 Feb 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1729

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Payner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 727 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, February 20, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 23, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

California v. Nevada

Mon, 14 Apr 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73 ORIG

Plaintiff

California

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Nevada

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 125 (1980)

Argued

Monday, April 14, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, June 10, 1980

Advocates

James R. Thompson (on behalf of the Defendant)

Jan S. Stevens (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Forsham v. Harris

Wed, 31 Oct 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1118

Petitioner

Forsham

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Harris

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 169 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 31, 1979

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1980

Advocates

Thomas E. Plank (on behalf of the Respondent Klimt)

Michael R. Sonnenreich (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Respondent Harris)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Committee For Public Education v. Regan

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1369

Appellee

Regan

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Committee For Public Education

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 646 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, November 27, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1980

Advocates

Richard E. Nolan (on behalf of the intervening parties-appellees)

Leo Pfeffer (on behalf of the appellants)

Shirley Adelson Siegel (on behalf of the appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Regan, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

None

Kissinger v. Reporters Committee

Wed, 31 Oct 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1088

Petitioner

Kissinger

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reporters Committee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 78-1217

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 136 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 31, 1979

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1980

Advocates

Robert M. Sussman (on behalf of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press)

William A. Dobrovir (on behalf of the Military Audit Project)

David Ginsburg (on behalf of the Petitioner Kissinger)

William Alsup (on behalf of the Federal parties)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Kissinger, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Liepelt

Mon, 05 Nov 1979 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1323

Petitioner

Norfolk & Western R. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Liepelt

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 490 (1980)

Argued

Monday, November 5, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, February 19, 1980

Advocates

Howard J. Trienens (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard S. Fleisher (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Norfolk & Western R. Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Employers' Liability

None

Gte Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1248

Petitioner

Gte Sylvania, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Consumers Union

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 375 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, November 28, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, March 19, 1980

Advocates

Alan B. Morrison (on behalf of the Respondents)

Harry L. Shniderman (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Federal Respondent supporting Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall

Wed, 09 Jan 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1870

Petitioner

Whirlpool Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Marshall

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 1 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, January 9, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, February 26, 1980

Advocates

Robert E. Mann (on behalf of the petitioner)

Wade H. McCree (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Marshall, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Occupational Safety and Health

None

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York

Mon, 17 Mar 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Public Service Commission

Empire State Plaza Albany NY 12223

Albany, NY 12223

United States

42° 39' 1.2492" N, 73° 45' 34.8768" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-565

Appellant

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Public Service Commission of New York

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 557 (1980)

Argued

Monday, March 17, 1980

Decided

Friday, June 20, 1980

Advocates

Telford Taylor (on behalf of the Appellant)

Peter H. Schiff (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

The Public Service Commission of New York (PSC), in the interest of conserving energy, enacted a regulation that prohibited electric utilities from promoting electricity use. The PSC's regulation distinguished promotional advertising from informational advertising, which was permitted. Central Hudson Gas and Electric challenged the regulation in a New York State Supreme Court, which upheld the regulation. The Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court affirmed the decision, as did the New York Court of Appeals.

Question

Did the PSC's ban on advertising violate the freedom of speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Central Hudson Gas & Elec. v. Public Ser, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. In an 8-1 opinion, the Court overruled the Court of Appeals of New York and held that the New York's ban violated the right to commercial speech. Writing for the majority, Justice Lewis F. Powell cited the protections for "commercial speech from unwarranted governmental regulation" set forth in Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council. The Court recognized New York's interest in promoting energy conservation and accepted that the PSC's regulation would directly further that interest. However, since the regulation restricted all promotional advertising regardless of its effect on electricity use, it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment under First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti. Justices William J. Brennan, Jr., Harry A. Blackmun, and John Paul Stevens each wrote opinions concurring in part and in the judgment.