The Oyez Project: 1981 Term Decisions

Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico (No. 80-1305)

No details yet.

American Medical Assn. v. Ftc (No. 80-1690)

No details yet.

American Soc. Of M. E.'s v. Hydrolevel Corp. (No. 80-1765)

No details yet.

American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson (No. 80-1199)

No details yet.

Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society (No. 80-419)

No details yet.

Army & Air Force Exchange Service v. Sheehan (No. 80-1437)

No details yet.

Asarco Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n (No. 80-2015)

No details yet.

Baldrige v. Shapiro (No. 80-1436)

No details yet.

Blue Shield Of Virginia v. Mccready (No. 81-225)

No details yet.

Blum v. Bacon (No. 81-770)

No details yet.

Blum v. Yaretsky (No. 80-1952)

No details yet.

Board Of Education v. Pico (No. 80-2043)

No details yet.

Bread Political Action Committee v. Fec (No. 80-1481)

Did the Board of Education's decision to ban certain books from its junior high and high school libraries, based on their content, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?

Yes. Although school boards have a vested interest in promoting respect for social, moral, and political community values, their discretionary power is secondary to the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment. The Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, held that as centers for voluntary inquiry and the dissemination of information and ideas, school libraries enjoy a special affinity with the rights of free speech and press. Therefore, the Board could not restrict the availability of books in its libraries simply because its members disagreed with their idea content.

Brown v. Hartlage (No. 80-1285)

Did the law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Yes. The Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens, by denying them the right to an education, and because Texas could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down the law.

Cabell v. Chavez-Salido (No. 80-990)

No details yet.

California Ex Rel. State Lands Comm'n v. U.S. (No. 89 ORIG)

No details yet.

California v. Grace Brethren Church (No. 81-31)

No details yet.

Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service v. NLRB (No. 80-931)

No details yet.

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. (No. 81-349)

No details yet.

Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley (No. 80-737)

No details yet.

City Of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc. (No. 80-1577)

No details yet.

Clements v. Fashing (No. 80-1290)

No details yet.

Common Cause v. Schmitt (No. 80-847)

No details yet.

Community Communications Co., v. Boulder (No. 80-1350)

No details yet.

Connecticut v. Teal (No. 80-2147)

No details yet.

Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Kassel (No. 79-1618)

Was the President immune from prosecution in a civil suit?

Yes. The Court held that the President "is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts." This sweeping immunity, argued Justice Powell, was a function of the "President's unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of separation of powers and supported by our history."

Cory v. White (No. 80-1556)

No details yet.

Crawford v. Los Angeles Board Of Education (No. 81-38)

No details yet.

Department Of State v. Washington Post Co. (No. 81-535)

No details yet.

Diedrich v. Commissioner (No. 80-2204)

No details yet.

Donovan v. Richland County Assn. (No. 81-255)

No details yet.

Eddings v. Oklahoma (No. 80-5727)

No details yet.

Edgar v. Mite Corporation (No. 80-1188)

Did the officer's seizure of the drugs violate Chrisman's "reasonable expectation of privacy" guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment?

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the "plain view" exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permitted law enforcement officers to seize clearly incriminating evidence discovered "in a place where the officer has a right to be." The Court held that the officer had a right to remain at the initial suspect's elbow at all times, and did not waive his right to custodial control because he hesitated briefly in the doorway of the dormitory room before entering. In short, the officer had obtained lawful access to an individual's area of privacy and was free to seize incriminating evidence.

Engle v. Isaac (No. 80-1430)

No details yet.

Enmund v. Florida (No. 81-5321)

No details yet.

F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Taxation & Revenue Dept. (No. 80-1745)

No details yet.

Fair Assessment In Real Estate Assn. v. Mcnary (No. 80-427)

No details yet.

Fbi v. Abramson (No. 80-1735)

No details yet.

Fec v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm. (No. 80-939)

No details yet.

Ferc v. Mississippi (No. 80-1749)

Does the possibility of an unfavorable change in law bar dismissal under forum non conveniens?

Yes. In a 7-3 majority opinion authored by Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Court held that the District Court properly weighed private and public interests using the Gulf Oil v. Gilbert test to determine that the trial should be held in Scotland. The possibility of a change in substantive law should ordinarily not be given conclusive or even substantial weight in the forum non conveniens inquiry. Justices Lewis Powell and Sandra Day o"Connor did not participate.

Fidelity Federal Sav. & Loan Assn. v. De La Cuesta (No. 81-750)

No details yet.

Finley v. Murray (No. 80-2205)

No details yet.

Finnegan v. Leu (No. 80-2150)

Did the Massachusetts law violate the First Amendment's freedom of press guarantee as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?

The Court held that the Massachusetts law violated the First Amendment. Recalling the Court's holding in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980), Justice Brennan reviewed important historical and judicial reasons why access to criminal trials is "properly afforded" First Amendment protection. When the court denies access, argued Brennan, the only justification is to serve a compelling state interest. The Court found no such interest here. First, protecting the psychological well-being of a minor, arguably a compelling interest, conceded Brennan, "does not justify a mandatory closure rule" as circumstances can vary greatly in this type of case. Second, there was no convincing empirical or logical evidence to prove that victims would be more likely to come forward if the press and public were excluded from trials of this nature.

Florida Dept. of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc. (No. 80-1348)

No details yet.

Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC (No. 81-300)

No details yet.

Foremost Insurance Co. v. Richardson (No. 80-2134)

No details yet.

G. D. Searle & Co. v. Cohn (No. 80-644)

No details yet.

General Building Contractors Assn. v. Pa. (No. 81-280)

No details yet.

General Telephone Co. Of Southwest v. Falcon (No. 81-574)

No details yet.

Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court (No. 81-611)

No details yet.

Greene v. Lindsey (No. 81-341)

No details yet.

Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc. (No. 81-614)

No details yet.

Harlow v. Fitzgerald (No. 80-945)

No details yet.

Hathorn v. Lovorn (No. 81-451)

No details yet.

Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman (No. 80-988)

No details yet.

Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. Of Ed. v. Rowley (No. 80-1002)

No details yet.

Herweg v. Ray (No. 80-60)

No details yet.

Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates (No. 80-1681)

No details yet.

Hopper v. Evans (No. 80-1714)

No details yet.

In Re R. M. J. (No. 80-1431)

No details yet.

INS v. Chadha (No. 80-1832)

No details yet.

Insurance Corp. v. Compagnie Des Bauxites (No. 81-440)

No details yet.

Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories (No. 80-2182)

No details yet.

Jackson Transit Authority v. Transit Union (No. 81-411)

No details yet.

Jacksonville Bulk Terminals v. Longshoremen (No. 80-1045)

No details yet.

Jewett v. Commissioner (No. 80-1614)

No details yet.

Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins (No. 80-1345)

No details yet.

Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. (No. 80-6045)

No details yet.

Lane v. Williams (No. 80-1240)

No details yet.

Larson v. Valente (No. 80-1666)

No details yet.

Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services (No. 80-2177)

No details yet.

Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (No. 80-5950)

No details yet.

Longshoremen v. Allied International, Inc. (No. 80-1663)

No details yet.

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan Catv Corp. (No. 81-244)

No details yet.

Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. (No. 80-1730)

No details yet.

Marine Bank v. Weaver (No. 80-1562)

No details yet.

Mcelroy v. United States (No. 80-6680)

No details yet.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Curran (No. 80-203)

No details yet.

Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn. (No. 81-460)

No details yet.

Mills v. Habluetzel (No. 80-6298)

No details yet.

Mills v. Rogers (No. 80-1417)

No details yet.

Miss. Univ. for Women v. Hogan (No. 81-406)

No details yet.

Murphy v. Hunt (No. 80-2165)

No details yet.

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (No. 81-202)

No details yet.

New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire (No. 80-1208)

No details yet.

New York v. Ferber (No. 81-55)

No details yet.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald (No. 79-1738)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Hendricks Cty. Rural Electric Corp. (No. 80-885)

No details yet.

North Haven Board Of Education v. Bell (No. 80-986)

No details yet.

Northern Pipeline Const. v. Marathon Pipe Line (No. 81-150)

No details yet.

O'dell v. Espinoza (No. 81-534)

No details yet.

Oregon v. Kennedy (No. 80-1991)

No details yet.

Patsy v. Florida Board Of Regents (No. 80-1874)

No details yet.

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (No. 80-848)

No details yet.

Plyler v. Doe (No. 80-1538)

No details yet.

Polk County v. Dodson (No. 80-824)

No details yet.

Princeton University v. Schmid (No. 80-1576)

No details yet.

Pullman-Standard v. Swint (No. 80-1190)

No details yet.

Railway Labor Executives' Assn. v. Gibbons (No. 80-415)

No details yet.

Ralston v. Robinson (No. 80-2049)

No details yet.

Ramah Navajo School Bd. v. Bureau Of Revenue (No. 80-2162)

No details yet.

Rendell-Baker v. Kohn (No. 80-2102)

No details yet.

Rice v. Norman Williams Co. (No. 80-1012)

No details yet.

Ridgway v. Ridgway (No. 80-1070)

No details yet.

Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party (No. 81-328)

No details yet.

Rogers v. Lodge (No. 80-2100)

No details yet.

Rose v. Lundy (No. 80-846)

No details yet.

Santosky v. Kramer (No. 80-5889)

No details yet.

Schweiker v. Hogan (No. 81-213)

No details yet.

Schweiker v. Mcclure (No. 81-212)

No details yet.

Smith v. Phillips (No. 80-1082)

No details yet.

Southern Pac. Transp. Co. v. Commercial Metals (No. 81-622)

No details yet.

Sporhase v. Nebraska Ex Rel. Douglas (No. 81-613)

No details yet.

Steelworkers v. Sadlowski (No. 81-395)

No details yet.

Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano (No. 80-2070)

No details yet.

Summit Valley Industries, Inc. v. Carpenters (No. 81-497)

No details yet.

Taylor v. Alabama (No. 81-5152)

No details yet.

Texaco, Inc. v. Short (No. 80-965)

No details yet.

Tibbs v. Florida (No. 81-5114)

No details yet.

Toll v. Moreno (No. 80-2178)

No details yet.

Transportation Union v. Long Island R. Co. (No. 80-1925)

No details yet.

U.S. Ind./Fed. Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Director, Owcp (No. 80-518)

No details yet.

U.S. Industries/Federal Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor (No. 80-513)

No details yet.

Umwa Health & Retirement Funds v. Robinson (No. 81-61)

No details yet.

Underwriters Assur. Co. v. N.C. Guaranty Assn. (No. 80-1496)

No details yet.

Union Labor Life Ins. Co. v. Pireno (No. 81-389)

No details yet.

United States v. Clark (No. 80-1121)

No details yet.

United States v. Erika, Inc. (No. 80-1594)

No details yet.

United States v. Frady (No. 80-1595)

Did the transfer of property violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

The Court held that Americans United for Separation of Church and State did not have standing to sue. Justice Rehnquist argued that the group did not pass the first prong of the Court's test for taxpayer standing. Since the source of the group's complaint was not a congressional statute but the decision of a government agency to dispose of a parcel of property, and because the transaction did not involve the taxing and spending power, the group had no standing to sue.

United States v. Goodwin (No. 80-2195)

No details yet.

United States v. Johnson (No. 80-1608)

No details yet.

United States v. Lee (No. 80-767)

No details yet.

United States v. Macdonald (No. 80-1582)

No details yet.

United States v. New Mexico (No. 80-702)

No details yet.

United States v. Ross (No. 80-2209)

No details yet.

United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal (No. 81-450)

No details yet.

United States v. Vogel Fertilizer Co. (No. 80-1251)

No details yet.

Valley Forge CC v. Americans United (No. 80-327)

No details yet.

Velde v. National Black Police Assn. (No. 80-1074)

No details yet.

Washington v. Chrisman (No. 80-1349)

No details yet.

Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1 (No. 81-9)

No details yet.

Watt v. Energy Action Educational Foundation (No. 80-1464)

No details yet.

Weinberger v. Catholic Action Of Hawaii (No. 80-1377)

No details yet.

Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo (No. 80-1990)

No details yet.

Weinberger v. Rossi (No. 80-1924)

No details yet.

White v. New Hampshire Dept. Of Empl. Sec. (No. 80-5887)

No details yet.

Widmar v. Vincent (No. 80-689)

No details yet.

Williams v. United States (No. 80-2116)

No details yet.

Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB (No. 80-1798)

No details yet.

Youngberg v. Romeo (No. 80-1429)

No details yet.

Zant v. Stephens (No. 81-89)

No details yet.

Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (No. 78-1545)

No details yet.

Zobel v. Williams (No. 80-1146)

No details yet.