The Oyez Project: 1980 Term Decisions

Albernaz v. United States (No. 79-1709)

No details yet.

Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. (No. 79-1943)

No details yet.

Allen v. Mccurry (No. 79-935)

No details yet.

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague (No. 79-938)

No details yet.

American Express Co. v. Koerner (No. 80-202)

No details yet.

American Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. Donovan (No. 79-1429)

No details yet.

Anderson Bros. Ford v. Valencia (No. 80-84)

No details yet.

Arizona v. Manypenny (No. 79-621)

No details yet.

Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Hall (No. 78-1789)

No details yet.

Ball v. James (No. 79-1740)

No details yet.

Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System (No. 79-2006)

No details yet.

Beltran v. Myers (No. 80-5303)

No details yet.

Board Of Govs., Frs v. Investment Company Inst. (No. 79-927)

No details yet.

Bullington v. Missouri (No. 79-6740)

No details yet.

California Medical Assn. v. Fec (No. 79-1952)

No details yet.

California v. Sierra Club (No. 79-1252)

No details yet.

Carson v. American Brands, Inc. (No. 79-1236)

No details yet.

Carter v. Kentucky (No. 80-5060)

No details yet.

CBS, Inc. v. FCC (No. 80-207)

No details yet.

Chandler v. Florida (No. 79-1260)

No details yet.

Chicago & N. W. Tr. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile (No. 79-1336)

No details yet.

Clayton v. Automobile Workers (No. 80-5049)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. Portland Cement Co. Of Utah (No. 79-1907)

No details yet.

Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana (No. 80-581)

No details yet.

Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Reis (No. 79-1777)

No details yet.

Connecticut Board Of Pardons v. Dumschat (No. 79-1997)

Did the president have the authority to transfer Iranian funds and to nullify legal claims against Iran?

The Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act constituted a specific congressional authorization for the President to order the transfer of Iranian assets. The Court further held that although the IEEPA itself did not authorize the presidential suspension of legal claims, previous acts of Congress had "implicitly approved" of executive control of claim settlement. The Court emphasized the narrowness of its ruling, limiting the decision to the facts of the case.

County Of Imperial v. Munoz (No. 79-1003)

No details yet.

County Of Washington v. Gunther (No. 80-429)

No details yet.

Cuyler v. Adams (No. 78-1841)

No details yet.

Dames & Moore v. Regan (No. 80-2078)

No details yet.

Delaware State College v. Ricks (No. 79-939)

No details yet.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August (No. 79-814)

No details yet.

Democratic Party Of U.S. v. Wisconsin (No. 79-1631)

No details yet.

Dennis v. Sparks (No. 79-1186)

No details yet.

Diamond v. Bradley (No. 79-855)

No details yet.

Diamond v. Diehr (No. 79-1112)

No details yet.

Doe v. Delaware (No. 79-5932)

No details yet.

Donovan v. Dewey (No. 80-901)

No details yet.

Edwards v. Arizona (No. 79-5269)

No details yet.

EEOC v. Associated Dry Goods Corp. (No. 79-1068)

No details yet.

Epa v. National Crushed Stone Assn. (No. 79-770)

No details yet.

Estelle v. Smith (No. 79-1127)

No details yet.

FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild (No. 79-824)

No details yet.

Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie (No. 79-1517)

No details yet.

Fedorenko v. United States (No. 79-5602)

No details yet.

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord (No. 79-1420)

No details yet.

First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB (No. 80-544)

No details yet.

Flynt v. Ohio (No. 80-420)

No details yet.

Ftc v. Standard Oil Co. Of Cal. (No. 79-900)

No details yet.

Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp. (No. 80-590)

No details yet.

Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard (No. 80-441)

No details yet.

H. A. Artists & Associates v. Actors' Equity Assn. (No. 80-348)

No details yet.

H. L. v. Matheson (No. 79-5903)

No details yet.

Haig v. Agee (No. 80-83)

No details yet.

Heffron v. Int. Society for Krishna Consciousness (No. 80-795)

No details yet.

Hodel v. Indiana (No. 80-231)

No details yet.

Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Recl. Assn. (No. 79-1538)

No details yet.

Howe v. Smith (No. 80-5392)

No details yet.

Hudson v. Louisiana (No. 79-5688)

No details yet.

Hughes v. Rowe (No. 79-6000)

No details yet.

J. Truett Payne Co. v. Chrysler Motors Corp. (No. 79-1944)

No details yet.

Jones v. Helms (No. 80-850)

No details yet.

Kassell v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of DL (No. 79-1320)

No details yet.

Kirchberg v. Feenstra (No. 79-1388)

No details yet.

Kissinger v. Halperin (No. 79-880)

No details yet.

Lassiter v. Department Of Social Services (No. 79-6423)

No details yet.

Lehman v. Nakshian (No. 80-242)

No details yet.

Little v. Streater (No. 79-6779)

No details yet.

Maryland v. Louisiana (No. 83 ORIG)

No details yet.

Mccarty v. Mccarty (No. 80-5)

No details yet.

Mcdaniel v. Sanchez (No. 80-180)

No details yet.

Memphis v. Greene (No. 79-1176)

No details yet.

Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe (No. 80-11)

No details yet.

Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (No. 80-195)

No details yet.

Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County (No. 79-1344)

No details yet.

Michigan v. Summers (No. 79-1794)

No details yet.

Middlesex Cty. Sewerage Auth. v. Sea Clammers (No. 79-1711)

No details yet.

Milwaukee v. Illinois (No. 79-408)

No details yet.

Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co. (No. 79-1171)

No details yet.

Minnick v. California Dept. Of Corrections (No. 79-1213)

No details yet.

Monroe v. Standard Oil Co. (No. 80-298)

No details yet.

Montana v. United States (No. 79-1128)

No details yet.

National Gerimedical Hospital v. Blue Cross (No. 80-802)

No details yet.

New York State Liquor Authority v. Bellanca (No. 80-813)

No details yet.

New York v. Belton (No. 80-328)

No details yet.

Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc. (No. 80-396)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Amax Coal Co. (No. 80-692)

No details yet.

Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers (No. 79-1056)

No details yet.

Parratt v. Taylor (No. 79-1734)

No details yet.

Pennhurst State School v. Halderman (No. 79-1404)

No details yet.

Plumbers & Pipefitters v. Plumbers & Pipefitters (No. 80-710)

No details yet.

Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, Owcp (No. 79-816)

No details yet.

Rhodes v. Chapman (No. 80-332)

No details yet.

Robbins v. California (No. 80-148)

No details yet.

Rodriguez v. Compass Shipping Co. (No. 79-1977)

No details yet.

Rosales-Lopez v. United States (No. 79-6624)

No details yet.

Rosewell v. Lasalle National Bank (No. 79-1157)

No details yet.

Rostker v. Goldberg (No. 80-251)

No details yet.

Rowan Cos. v. United States (No. 80-780)

No details yet.

Rubin v. United States (No. 79-1013)

Can one patent a machine that transforms materials physically under the control of a programmed computer?

Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, the court held that a machine which transforms materials physically under the control of a programmed computer is patentable. In addition, and without overruling the earlier Gottschalk v. Benson decision holding that a mathematical procedure cannot be patented, the majority in Diehr said the Benson decision did not render all computer programs unpatentable, contrary to what Justice John Paul Stevens argued in his strong dissenting opinion in Diehr. The Diehr court left undecided the question of whether computer programs standing by themselves could ever be patentable. Immediately following the Diehr ruling, software patent applications began flowing into the Patent Office in a steady stream that remains undiminished today. (Thirteen years later, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in In re Alappat, ruled that virtually all computer programs are patentable.)

San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego (No. 79-678)

No details yet.

Schad v. Mount Ephraim (No. 79-1640)

No details yet.

Schweiker v. Gray Panthers (No. 80-756)

No details yet.

Schweiker v. Wilson (No. 79-1380)

No details yet.

Scindia Steam Navigation Co., v. De Los Santos (No. 79-512)

No details yet.

St. Martin Lutheran Church v. South Dakota (No. 80-120)

No details yet.

Staats, v. Bristol Laboratories (No. 80-264)

No details yet.

Steadman v. SEC (No. 79-1266)

No details yet.

Steagald v. United States (No. 79-6777)

No details yet.

Stone v. Graham (No. 80-321)

No details yet.

Sumner v. Mata (No. 79-1601)

No details yet.

Texas Dept. Of Community Affairs v. Burdine (No. 79-1764)

No details yet.

Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc. (No. 79-1144)

No details yet.

Thomas v. Review Bd., Ind. Empl. Sec. Di (No. 79-952)

No details yet.

U.S. Postal Service v. Greenburgh Civic Assns. (No. 80-608)

No details yet.

U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz (No. 79-870)

No details yet.

United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell (No. 80-169)

No details yet.

United States v. Cortez (No. 79-404)

No details yet.

United States v. Difrancesco (No. 79-567)

No details yet.

United States v. Morrison (No. 79-395)

No details yet.

United States v. Swank (No. 79-1515)

No details yet.

United States v. Turkette (No. 80-808)

No details yet.

United States v. Will (No. 79-983)

No details yet.

Universities Research Assn. v. Coutu (No. 78-1945)

No details yet.

University Of Texas v. Camenisch (No. 80-317)

No details yet.

Upjohn Co. v. United States (No. 79-886)

No details yet.

Vincent v. Texas (No. 79-5962)

May a state, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, confine religious organizations wishing to sell and distribute religious literature at a state fair to an assigned location within the fairgrounds?

Using the "valid time, manner, and place" criteria which the Court employs to assess government restrictions of First Amendment activities, the Court held that Rule 6.05 did not violate the Constitution. Since the rule was applied equally to all groups wanting to solicit at the fairgrounds, not making restrictions based on the content of a group's message, and because the state had an important interest in "protecting the safety and convenience" of the fair's patrons, Justice White argued that the rule's restrictions were legitimate. Allowing all religious, nonreligious, and commercial groups to move about the grounds distributing literature and soliciting funds would result in "widespread disorder" which would be potentially dangerous to the fair's visitors.

Walter Fleisher Co., Inc. v. County Of Los Angeles (No. 79-700)

No details yet.

Watkins v. Sowders (No. 79-5949)

No details yet.

Watt v. Alaska (No. 79-1890)

No details yet.

Weaver v. Graham (No. 79-5780)

No details yet.

Webb v. Webb (No. 79-6853)

No details yet.

Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies Inc. v. Beckwith (No. 79-1033)

No details yet.

Western & Southern L. I. Co. v. Bd. Of Equalization (No. 79-1423)

No details yet.

Wood v. Georgia (No. 79-6027)

Did the President, acting through the Secretary of State, have the constitutional authority to revoke the passport?

In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that Passport Act of 1926 and other congressional statutes implicitly granted the Secretary of State the power to revoke passports. The Court noted Congress's historical recognition of "Executive authority to withhold passports on the basis of substantial reasons of national security and foreign policy." The Court further held that because the regulations were limited to cases in which there was a likelihood of "serious damage" to foreign policy, Agee's claims concerning the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the right to travel were "without merit."