The Oyez Project: 1980 Term

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)

Two Miami Beach police officers were charged with burglarizing a local restaurant. Their trial gained much media attention. Local television stations televised a small portion of the trial, thanks to a recent Florida Supreme Court decision which permitted (with certain restrictions) electronic media to record judicial proceedings. Officers Chandler and Granger objected to the coverage and were found guilty as charged.

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)

No details yet.

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)

In reaction to the seizure of the U.S. embassy and American nationals in Iran, President Jimmy Carter invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and froze Iranian assets in the United States. When the hostages were released in 1981, Treasury Secretary Donald Reagan affirmed the agreements made the Carter administration that terminated all legal proceedings against the Iranian government and created an independent Claims Tribunal. Dames & Moore attempted to recover over $3 million owed to it by the Iranian government and claimed the executive orders were beyond the scope of presidential power.

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)

Engineers James Diehr and Theodore Lutton invented an improved press that cured rubber by controlled heating. The press contained a temperature probe which measured the temperature rise of the rubber from within the press. By repeatedly calculating the rubber cure time from this temperature measurement and comparing this computed cure time to the actual elapsed time, the computer was able to determine precisely when to open the press and eject the cured rubber, which then emerged perfectly cured. The patent examiner, viewing all computer programs as unpatentable because of the earlier Supreme Court decision Gottschalk v. Benson (1972), rejected their patent application because, he argued, the inventors had simply combined an unpatentable program with a conventional rubber curing press. An appellate court reversed the Examiner and ordered a patent to issue. The Commissioner of Patents then petitioned successfully to have the Supreme Court review this decision. Before the Supreme Court, the inventors' attorney argued that the steps of continuously measuring temperature and repeatedly recalculating the rubber cure time and comparing it to the elapsed time were new steps that were worthy of patent protection.

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)

In 1974, Philip Agee, a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, announced a campaign "to fight the United States CIA wherever it is operating." Over the next several years, Agee successfully exposed a number of CIA agents and sources working in other countries. When Secretary of State Alexander Haig revoked Agee's passport, Agee filed suit claiming that Haig did not have congressional authorization to do so. Agee also claimed that the action violated his right to travel, his First Amendment right to criticize the government, and his Fifth Amendment Due Process rights.

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

A Minnesota law allowed the Minnesota Agricultural Society to devise rules to regulate the annual state fair in St. Paul. Minnesota State Fair Rule 6.05 required organizations wishing to sell or distribute goods and written material to do so from an assigned location on the fairgrounds. In other words, walking vendors and solicitors were not allowed. The International Society for Krishna Consciousness challenged the rule, arguing that it restricted the ability of its followers to freely exercise their religious beliefs at the state fair.

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)

An Iowa law restricted the length of vehicles traveling on its highways. Iowa justified the law as a reasonable use of its police power to assure safety on the state's roads.

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)

Michael M., a 17 and 1/2 year-old male, was found guilty of violating California's "statutory rape" law. The law defined unlawful sexual intercourse as "an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the wife of the perpetrator, where the female is under the age of 18 years." The statute thus made men alone criminally liable for such conduct. Michael M. challenged the constitutionality of the law.

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)

After the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in early 1980, President Jimmy Carter reactivated the draft registration process. Congress agreed with Carter's decision, but did not enact his recommendation that the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) be amended to include the registration of females. A number of men challenged the constitutionality of the MSSA, and the challenge was sustained by a district court.

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

No details yet.

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

No details yet.

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)

Sydell Stone and a number of other parents challenged a Kentucky state law that required the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments in each public school classroom. They filed a claim against James Graham, the superintendent of public schools in Kentucky.

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)

Congress enacted legislation in the late 1960s and early 1970s to adjust the compensation of federal employees, including judges, which provided automatic annual pay raises. However, from 1976 to 1979 Congress intervened and blocked cost-of-living increases which were scheduled to occur.

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)

No details yet.

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)

No details yet.