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

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. 552 (1980)

Argued

Monday, January 14, 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