The Oyez Project: 1982 Term Decisions

Akron v. Akron Center For Reproductive Health (No. 81-746)

No details yet.

American Bank & Trust Co. v. Dallas County (No. 81-1717)

No details yet.

American Paper Inst. v. American Elec. Power (No. 82-34)

No details yet.

Anderson v. Celebrezze (No. 81-1635)

No details yet.

Arizona Governing Committee v. Norris (No. 82-52)

No details yet.

Arizona v. California (No. 8 ORIG)

No details yet.

Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe (No. 81-2147)

No details yet.

Arkansas Elec. Coop. v. Ark. Public Ser v. Comm'n (No. 81-731)

No details yet.

Associated General Contractors v. Carpenters (No. 81-334)

No details yet.

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Nrdc (No. 82-524)

No details yet.

Bankamerica Corp. v. United States (No. 81-1487)

Did the California law unconstitutionally intrude into areas of federal authority as defined by the Atomic Energy Act?

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the California law did not impinge upon congressional authority. The Court found that because the rationale for enacting the law was an economic one, it did not interfere with federal regulations governing nuclear safety. The Court held that Congress had left "sufficient authority in the states to allow the development of nuclear power to be slowed or even stopped for economic reasons" and that the courts should not rework the division of regulatory authority created by Congress.

Barclay v. Florida (No. 81-6908)

No details yet.

Barefoot v. Estelle (No. 82-6080)

No details yet.

Bearden v. Georgia (No. 81-6633)

No details yet.

Belknap, Inc. v. Hale (No. 81-1966)

Did the sentence violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Yes. Since all of Helm's prior offenses, including his current check-writing conviction, had been "relatively minor" and were not crimes against people, Justice Powell held that Helm had "received the penultimate sentence (South Dakota did not have the death penalty) for relatively minor criminal conduct." Powell concluded that Helm was treated more harshly than the state's most violent criminals.

Bell v. New Jersey (No. 81-2125)

No details yet.

Bell v. United States (No. 82-5119)

No details yet.

Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB (No. 81-2257)

No details yet.

Block v. Neal (No. 81-1494)

No details yet.

Block v. North Dakota (No. 81-2337)

No details yet.

Bob Jones University v. U. S. (No. 81-3)

No details yet.

Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp. (No. 81-1590)

No details yet.

Bowen v. United States Postal Service (No. 81-525)

No details yet.

Bowsher v. Merck & Co. (No. 81-1273)

Was the ninety minute seizure of the traveler's luggage a valid investigative stop under Terry? Did the "sniff test" by the dog constitute a search?

No and no. Seizures pursuant to investigative detentions are lawful only if they are limited in scope, as described in Terry, and evidence resulting from such unlawful seizures must be suppressed. The "sniff" of a properly trained narcotics detection dog does not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

Briscoe v. Lahue (No. 81-1404)

No details yet.

Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Comm. (No. 81-776)

No details yet.

Brown v. Thompson (No. 82-65)

No details yet.

Burlington Northern Inc. v. United States (No. 81-1008)

Did Lyons's injunction against the use of police chokeholds meet the threshold requirements imposed by Article III of the Constitution?

No. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that federal courts were without jurisdiction to entertain Lyons' claim for injunctive relief. The fact that Lyons had been choked once did nothing to establish "a real and immediate threat that he would again be stopped. . .by an officer who would illegally choke him into unconsciousness." The Court held that in order to establish an actual controversy, Lyons would have to show either 1) that all Los Angeles police officers always choked citizens with whom they had encounters, or 2) that the City ordered or authorized officers to act in such a manner. Lyons was thus limited to suing the police and the city for individual damages.

Bush v. Lucas (No. 81-469)

No details yet.

California v. Ramos (No. 81-1893)

No details yet.

Carpenters v. Scott (No. 82-486)

No details yet.

Chappell v. Wallace (No. 82-167)

No details yet.

Chardon v. Fumero Soto (No. 82-271)

No details yet.

Colorado v. New Mexico (No. 80 ORIG)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. Tufts (No. 81-1536)

No details yet.

Community Television Of So. Cal. v. Gottfried (No. 81-298)

No details yet.

Connecticut v. Johnson (No. 81-927)

No details yet.

Connick v. Myers (No. 81-1251)

No details yet.

Container Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (No. 81-523)

No details yet.

Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker (No. 82-118)

No details yet.

D.C. Court Of Appeals v. Feldman (No. 81-1335)

No details yet.

Delcostello v. Teamsters (No. 81-2386)

No details yet.

Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc. (No. 81-1180)

Is the California statute unconstitutionally vague?

The law was unconstitutionally vague because it gave excessive discretion to the police (in the absence of probable cause for an arrest) whether to stop and interrogate a suspect or leave him alone. The majority hinted that the California statute compromised the constitutional right to freedom of movement.

Director, Owcp v. Perini North River Assoc. (No. 81-897)

No details yet.

Dirks v. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (No. 82-276)

No details yet.

Edward J. Debartolo Corp. v. NLRB (No. 81-1985)

No details yet.

EEOC v. Wyoming (No. 81-554)

No details yet.

Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light (No. 81-1370)

No details yet.

Exxon Corp. v. Eagerton (No. 81-1020)

No details yet.

Fall City Industries v. Vanco Beverage (No. 81-1271)

No details yet.

Fec v. National Right To Work Committee (No. 81-1506)

No details yet.

Firefighters v. Boston Chapter, NAACP (No. 82-185)

No details yet.

First Nat. City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio (No. 81-984)

No details yet.

Florida v. Casal (No. 81-2318)

No details yet.

Florida v. Royer (No. 80-2146)

No details yet.

Franchise Tax Bd. v. Laborers Vacation Trust (No. 82-695)

No details yet.

Ftc v. Grolier Inc. (No. 82-372)

No details yet.

General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp. (No. 81-1661)

No details yet.

Gillette Co. v. Miner (No. 81-1493)

Did the gerrymandering in the reapportionment plan violate Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution?

Even though the population differences in the districts were slight, the Court held that they were unconstitutional because they "were not the result of a good-faith effort to achieve population equality." Justice Brennan upheld past Court decisions (Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 1973, and Wesberry v. Sanders, 1964) and argued that relying on a strict numerical standard of populations to assess district equality would be misguided.

Guardians Assn. v. Civil Service Comm'n, N. Y. C. (No. 81-431)

No details yet.

Haring v. Prosise (No. 81-2169)

No details yet.

Heckler v. Campbell (No. 81-1983)

No details yet.

Hensley v. Eckerhart (No. 81-1244)

No details yet.

Herman & Maclean v. Huddleston (No. 81-680)

No details yet.

Hewitt v. Helms (No. 81-638)

No details yet.

Hillsboro National Bank v. Commissioner (No. 81-485)

No details yet.

Idaho Ex Rel. Evans v. Oregon (No. 67 ORIG)

No details yet.

Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc. (No. 81-1114)

No details yet.

Illinois v. Andreas (No. 81-1843)

No details yet.

Illinois v. Gates (No. 81-430)

No details yet.

Illinois v. Lafayette (No. 81-1859)

No details yet.

Jefferson County Pharm. Assn. v. Abbott Labs. (No. 81-827)

No details yet.

Jim Mcneff, Inc. v. Todd (No. 81-2150)

No details yet.

Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer (No. 82-131)

No details yet.

Jones v. Barnes (No. 81-1794)

No details yet.

Jones v. United States (No. 81-5195)

No details yet.

Karcher v. Daggett (No. 81-2057)

No details yet.

Kolender v. Lawson (No. 81-1320)

No details yet.

Kush v. Rutledge (No. 81-1675)

No details yet.

Landon v. Plasencia (No. 81-129)

No details yet.

Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc. (No. 81-878)

No details yet.

Lehr v. Robertson (No. 81-1756)

No details yet.

Lockhart v. United States (No. 81-802)

No details yet.

Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States (No. 81-1181)

No details yet.

Los Angeles v. Lyons (No. 81-1064)

No details yet.

Marsh v. Chambers (No. 82-23)

No details yet.

Marshall v. Lonberger (No. 81-420)

No details yet.

Martinez v. Bynum (No. 81-857)

No details yet.

Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Garner (No. 81-1613)

Did the search of the Gates's home violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

The Court found no constitutional violation and argued that the lower court misapplied the test for probable cause which the Court had announced in Spinelli v. United States (1969). Justice Rehnquist argued that an informant's veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge are important in determining probable cause, but that those issues are intertwined and should not be rigidly applied. He argued that the "totality-of-the-circumstances" approach to probable cause was the correct one to glean from Spinelli, and that the law enforcement officials who obtained a warrant abided by it in this case.

Mennonite Board Of Missions v. Adams (No. 82-11)

No details yet.

Metropolitan Edison Co. v. NLRB (No. 81-1664)

No details yet.

Metropolitan Edison v. People Vs. Nuclear Energy (No. 81-2399)

No details yet.

Michigan v. Long (No. 82-256)

No details yet.

Minn. Star & Trib. Co. v. MN Comm. of Rev. (No. 81-1839)

No details yet.

Missouri v. Hunter (No. 81-1214)

No details yet.

Montana v. Jackson (No. 81-1531)

No details yet.

Morris v. Slappy (No. 81-1095)

No details yet.

Morrison-Knudsen Constr. Co. v. Director, Owcp (No. 81-1891)

No details yet.

Moses H. Cone Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp. (No. 81-1203)

No details yet.

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. v. State Farm Mut. (No. 82-354)

No details yet.

Mueller v. Allen (No. 82-195)

No details yet.

National Assn. Of Greeting Card Pubs. v. Usps (No. 81-1304)

No details yet.

Nevada v. United States (No. 81-2245)

No details yet.

New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe (No. 82-331)

No details yet.

Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock v. EEOC (No. 82-411)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp. (No. 82-168)

No details yet.

North Dakota v. United States (No. 81-773)

No details yet.

Olim v. Wakinekona (No. 81-1581)

Can the government prohibit race discrimination at the expense of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clauses?

The Court found that the IRS was correct in its decision to revoke the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University and the Goldsboro Christian School. These institutions did not meet the requirement by providing "beneficial and stabilizing influences in community life" to be supported by taxpayers with a special tax status. The schools could not meet this requirement due to their discriminatory policies. The Court declared that racial discrimination in education violated a "fundamental national public policy." The government may justify a limitation on religious liberties by showing it is necessary to accomplish an "overriding governmental interest." Prohibiting racial discrimination was such a governmental interest. Hence, the Court found that "not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional."

Operating Engineers v. Jones (No. 81-1574)

No details yet.

Oregon v. Bradshaw (No. 81-1857)

No details yet.

Pacific G & E Co. v. State Energy Res. C & D Com. (No. 81-1945)

No details yet.

Pallas Shipping Agency, Ltd. v. Duris (No. 82-502)

No details yet.

Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman (No. 81-2101)

Did the State of Wyoming violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by allocating one of its state House seats to a county with a population considerably lower than the average population per state representative?

The Court upheld the Wyoming apportionment scheme and found no Fourteenth Amendment violations. Justice Powell argued that using counties as legislative districts and assuring at least one representative per county supported "substantial and legitimate state concerns." Since the population variations in the Wyoming plan were the result of the consistent application of a nondiscriminatory and legitimate state policy, the plan was consistent with the Constitution. Any dilution of voting strength which the constituents of the other sixty-three representatives may have experienced as a result of Niobrara's relatively small population was minimal and irrelevant given the advantages of the Wyoming scheme.

Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn. (No. 81-896)

No details yet.

Philko Aviation, Inc. v. Shacket (No. 82-342)

No details yet.

Pickett v. Brown (No. 82-5576)

No details yet.

Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy (No. 81-825)

No details yet.

Planned Parenthood Assn. v. Ashcroft (No. 81-1255)

No details yet.

Port Arthur v. United States (No. 81-708)

No details yet.

Public Service Comm'n v. Mid-Louisiana Gas Co. (No. 81-1889)

No details yet.

Regan v. Taxation With Representation Of Wash. (No. 81-2338)

No details yet.

Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital (No. 82-63)

No details yet.

Rice v. Rehner (No. 82-401)

No details yet.

Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club (No. 82-242)

No details yet.

Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (No. 81-1578)

No details yet.

Shepard v. NLRB (No. 81-1627)

No details yet.

Simopoulos v. Virginia (No. 81-185)

No details yet.

Smith v. Wade (No. 81-1196)

No details yet.

Solem v. Helm (No. 82-492)

No details yet.

Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios (No. 81-1687)

No details yet.

South Dakota v. Neville (No. 81-1453)

No details yet.

Texas v. Brown (No. 81-419)

No details yet.

Texas v. New Mexico (No. 65 ORIG)

No details yet.

Tuten v. United States (No. 81-6756)

No details yet.

U.S. Postal Service Bd. Of Govs. v. Aikens (No. 81-1044)

No details yet.

United States v. $8,850 (No. 81-1062)

No details yet.

United States v. Baggot (No. 81-1938)

No details yet.

United States v. Generix Drug Corp. (No. 81-1222)

No details yet.

United States v. Grace (No. 81-1863)

No details yet.

United States v. Hasting (No. 81-1463)

No details yet.

United States v. Knotts (No. 81-1802)

No details yet.

United States v. Mitchell (No. 81-1748)

No details yet.

United States v. Place (No. 81-1617)

Can a federal employee sue for damages for the violation of his First Amendment rights by his superior where Congress has provided a comprehensive remedial scheme, although one which does not fully compensate the employee for the harm suffered?

No; not under the CSC regulations. The federal judiciary, pursuant to its common law authority, has the power to recognize new causes of action in absence of, or to supplement, statutory remedies unless Congress has expressly indicated its relief is to be exclusive. In determining whether judicial relief should be granted, federal courts are (1) to pay particular attention to special factors counseling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress, and (2) to ascertain whether the purpose and comprehensive nature of the statutory scheme precludes judicial remedies where statutory relief is available. The administrative scheme in this case reflected Congress_ attempt to balance the competing interests of protecting the First Amendment rights of federal employees and maintaining a disciplined and effective workforce. Congress, not the judiciary, is in the best position to regulate the employee relations. Grant of supplementary judicial relief would disrupt this balance and is therefore inappropriate.

United States v. Ptasynski (No. 82-1066)

No details yet.

United States v. Rodgers (No. 81-1476)

No details yet.

United States v. Rylander (No. 81-1120)

No details yet.

United States v. Security Industrial Bank (No. 81-184)

No details yet.

United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc. (No. 81-1032)

No details yet.

United States v. Villamonte-Marquez (No. 81-1350)

No details yet.

United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc. (No. 82-215)

No details yet.

Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank Of Nigeria (No. 81-920)

No details yet.

W. R. Grace & Co. v. Rubber Workers (No. 81-1314)

No details yet.

Washington v. United States (No. 81-969)

No details yet.

Watt v. Western Nuclear, Inc. (No. 81-1686)

No details yet.

White v. Mass. Council Of Constr. Employers (No. 81-1003)

No details yet.

Xerox Corp. v. County Of Harris (No. 81-1489)

No details yet.

Zant v. Stephens (No. 81-89)

No details yet.