The Oyez Project: 1983 Term

Allen v. Wright (No. 81-757)

No details yet.

Aloha Airlines, Inc. v. Director Of Taxation (No. 82-585)

No details yet.

Aluminum Co. v. Central Lincoln Util. Dist. (No. 82-1071)

No details yet.

Arizona v. Rumsey (No. 83-226)

No details yet.

Armco Inc. v. Hardesty (No. 83-297)

No details yet.

Bacchus Imports Ltd. v. Dias (No. 82-1565)

No details yet.

Badaracco v. Commissioner (No. 82-1453)

No details yet.

Berkemer v. Mccarty (No. 83-710)

No details yet.

Bernal v. Fainter (No. 83-630)

No details yet.

Block v. Community Nutrition Institute (No. 83-458)

No details yet.

Block v. Rutherford (No. 83-317)

No details yet.

Blum v. Stenson (No. 81-1374)

No details yet.

Board Of Education v. Vail (No. 83-87)

No details yet.

Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. (No. 82-1246)

No details yet.

Brown v. Hotel Employees (No. 83-498)

No details yet.

Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. FLRA (No. 82-799)

No details yet.

Burnett v. Grattan (No. 83-264)

No details yet.

Calder v. Jones (No. 82-1401)

No details yet.

California v. Trombetta (No. 83-305)

No details yet.

Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp (No. 82-1795)

Meyers was charged with sexual battery. Police officers searched his automobile at the time of his arrest, and then impounded the vehicle at a private facility. Eight hours later, the police re-entered the facility, without a warrant, and searched the car a second time. A Florida court suppressed evidence obtained in the second search, arguing the warrantless search was unconstitutional. The Florida Supreme Court denied review. The Supreme Court subsequently accepted the State's petition for certiorari.

Chevron U.S. A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council (No. 82-1005)

No details yet.

City Council v. Taxpayers For Vincent (No. 82-975)

No details yet.

Clark v. C.C.N.V. (No. 82-1998)

No details yet.

Colorado v. New Mexico (No. 80 ORIG)

No details yet.

Colorado v. Nunez (No. 82-1845)

After extensive hearings in the mid-1960s, the Hawaii legislature discovered that while Federal and State governments owned nearly 49 percent of the land in Hawaii, another 47 percent was owned by only 72 private landowners. To combat this concentration of ownership, the legislature enacted the Land Reform Act of 1967. The Act adopted a method of redistribution in which title in real property could be taken from lessors and transferred to lessees. Frank E. Midkiff, a landholder, challenged the Act.

Commissioner v. Engle (No. 82-599)

No details yet.

Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Darrone (No. 82-862)

No details yet.

Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank Of Richmond (No. 83-185)

No details yet.

Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. (No. 82-1260)

Anthony and Linda Sidoti, both Caucasians, were divorced and Linda was awarded custody of their daughter. One year later, Anthony sought custody of the child after Linda began cohabitating with Clarence Palmore, an African-American. The Florida courts awarded Mr. Sidoti custody of the child, arguing that the child would be more vulnerable to social stigmatization in a racially mixed household. No evidence was introduced that indicated Ms. Sidoti was unfit to continue the custody of the child.

Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. Fox (No. 82-1200)

No details yet.

Davis v. Scherer (No. 83-490)

No details yet.

Dickman v. Commissioner (No. 82-1041)

No details yet.

Dixson v. United States (No. 82-5279)

No details yet.

Donovan v. Lone Steer, Inc. (No. 82-1684)

No details yet.

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders (No. 83-18)

No details yet.

EEOC v. Shell Oil Co. (No. 82-825)

No details yet.

Ellis v. Railway Clerks (No. 82-1150)

No details yet.

Escambia County v. Mcmillan (No. 82-1295)

In 1980, Oklahoma's Attorney General determined that the re-broadcasting of out-of-state alcoholic beverage commercials by Oklahoma cable television stations violated the State's ban against advertising alcoholic beverages. Richard Crisp, the Director of Oklahoma's Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, warned the offending cable operators that their continued transmission of banned beverage commercials would result in criminal prosecution. In response, and on behalf of other cable operators, Capital Cities Cable challenged the constitutionality of Oklahoma's advertising ban. On appeal from the Tenth Circuit's reversal of a district court decision favoring Capital Cities Cable, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Escondido Mut. Water Co. v. La Jolla Indians (No. 82-2056)

No details yet.

FCC v. ITT World Communications, Inc. (No. 83-371)

No details yet.

FCC v. League of Women Voters of California (No. 82-912)

No details yet.

Firefighters v. Stotts (No. 82-206)

No details yet.

Flanagan v. United States (No. 82-374)

No details yet.

Florida v. Meyers (No. 83-1279)

No details yet.

Franchise Tax Board Of California v. Usps (No. 83-372)

No details yet.

Furniture Moving Drivers v. Crowley (No. 82-432)

No details yet.

Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Authority (No. 82-1913)

No details yet.

Grove City College v. Bell (No. 82-792)

No details yet.

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (No. 83-141)

No details yet.

Hayfield Northern R. Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Tr. Co. (No. 82-1579)

No details yet.

Heckler v. Community Health Services (No. 83-56)

No details yet.

Heckler v. Day (No. 82-1371)

No details yet.

Heckler v. Edwards (No. 82-874)

No details yet.

Heckler v. Matthews (No. 82-1050)

No details yet.

Heckler v. Ringer (No. 82-1772)

No details yet.

Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia v. Hall (No. 82-1127)

No details yet.

Hishon v. King & Spalding (No. 82-940)

No details yet.

Hobby v. United States (No. 82-2140)

No details yet.

Hoover v. Ronwin (No. 82-1474)

Kathy Keeton (Keeton) sued Hustler Magazine, Inc. (Hustler) and several other defendants for libel in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Keeton alleged that the district court had jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship since she was a resident of New York and Hustler was an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in California. Hustler sold 10 to 15 thousand copies of its magazine in New Hampshire each month but Keeton's only connection to New Hampshire was the circulation there of copies of a magazine that she assisted in producing. She chose to sue in New Hampshire because it was the only state in which the statute of limitation for libel six years, the longest in the United States had not run. The district court dismissed the suit on the ground that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbade the application of New Hampshire's long-arm statute in order to acquire personal jurisdiction over Hustler. The First Circuit affirmed, finding that Keeton's contacts with New Hampshire were too attenuated for an assertion of personal jurisdiction over Hustler. The Court of Appeals also found the application of the "single publication rule," which would require the court to award Keeton damages caused in all states should she prevail, unfair since most of Keeton's alleged injuries occurred outside of New Hampshire.

Hudson v. Palmer (No. 82-1630)

Grove City College, a private, coeducational liberal arts school, sought to preserve its institutional autonomy by consistently refusing state and federal financial assistance. The College did, however, enroll a large number of students who received Basic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOG's) through a Department of Education-run program. The DOE concluded that this assistance to students qualified the College as a recipient of federal assistance and made it subject to the nondiscrimination requirements of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. When the College refused to comply with the requirements, the DOE attempted to terminate assistance to the student financial aid program. The College challenged the DOE's actions.

Icc v. American Trucking Assns., Inc. (No. 82-1643)

No details yet.

Ins v. Delgado (No. 82-1271)

The exclusionary rule requires that evidence illegally seized must be excluded from criminal trials. Leon was the target of police surveillance based on an anonymous informant's tip. The police applied to a judge for a search warrant of Leon's home based on the evidence from their surveillance. A judge issued the warrant and the police recovered large quantities of illegal drugs. Leon was indicted for violating federal drug laws. A judge concluded that the affadavit for the search warrant was insufficient; it did not establish the probable cause necessary to issue the warrant. Thus, the evidence obtained under the warrant could not be introduced at Leon's trial.

INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (No. 83-491)

No details yet.

Ins v. Phinpathya (No. 82-91)

No details yet.

Ins v. Stevic (No. 82-973)

No details yet.

Irving Independent School Dist. v. Tatro (No. 83-558)

No details yet.

James v. Kentucky (No. 82-6840)

No details yet.

Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde (No. 82-1031)

No details yet.

Justices Of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon (No. 82-1479)

No details yet.

Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc. (No. 82-485)

No details yet.

Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States (No. 82-1994)

No details yet.

Koehler v. Engle (No. 83-1)

No details yet.

Kosak v. United States (No. 82-618)

No details yet.

Limbach v. Hooven & Allison Co. (No. 83-96)

No details yet.

Louisiana v. Mississippi (No. 86 ORIG)

No details yet.

Lynch v. Donnelly (No. 82-1256)

No details yet.

Mabry v. Johnson (No. 83-328)

No details yet.

Massachusetts v. Sheppard (No. 82-963)

No details yet.

Mccain v. Lybrand (No. 82-282)

No details yet.

Mcdonald v. West Branch (No. 83-219)

No details yet.

Mcdonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood (No. 82-958)

No details yet.

Mckaskle v. Wiggins (No. 82-1135)

Title II of the Social Security Act (Act) establishes a four-step review process of disputed disability benefit claims. First, a state agency determines if a claimant has a disability and when the condition began or ended. Second, state agencies' disability determinations can be reviewed upon the claimant's request. Third, if upon review the claimant suffers an adverse finding he or she may demand an evidentiary hearing by an administrative law judge. Fourth, if a claimant is dissatisfied with the administrative law judge's decision, they may appeal to the Appeals Council of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Claiming delays in excess of 90 days, during steps two and three, Leon Day sued on behalf of several similarly aggrieved Vermont claimants alleging a violation of the "reasonable time" hearing limitation. On appeal from the Second Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling upholding a district court's imposition of disability hearing deadlines, the Supreme Court granted HHS Secretary Margaret Heckler certiorari.

Michigan Canners & Freezers v. Agricultural Bd. (No. 82-1577)

No details yet.

Michigan v. Clifford (No. 82-357)

No details yet.

Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. Of Ed. (No. 82-738)

No details yet.

Minnesota Bd. For Community Colleges v. Knight (No. 82-898)

No details yet.

Minnesota v. Murphy (No. 82-827)

No details yet.

Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp. (No. 82-914)

No details yet.

Ncaa v. Board Of Regents Of Uni v. Of Okla. (No. 83-271)

No details yet.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (No. 83-712)

No details yet.

New York v. Quarles (No. 82-1213)

No details yet.

New York v. Uplinger (No. 82-1724)

The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 allocated federal funds to noncommercial television and radio stations to support operations and educational programming. The act did not allow stations receiving money under the act to "engage in editorializing."

Nix v. Williams (No. 82-1651)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco (No. 82-818)

No details yet.

NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, Inc. (No. 82-960)

No details yet.

Norfolk Redev. & Housing Auth. v. C. & P. Tel. (No. 81-2332)

No details yet.

Ohio v. Johnson (No. 83-904)

No details yet.

Oliver v. United States (No. 82-15)

No details yet.

Palmore v. Sidoti (No. 82-1734)

No details yet.

Patton v. Yount (No. 83-95)

No details yet.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. R. A. Gray & Co. (No. 83-245)

No details yet.

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court Of Cal. (No. 82-556)

No details yet.

Pulley v. Harris (No. 82-1095)

No details yet.

Pulliam v. Allen (No. 82-1432)

No details yet.

Reed v. Ross (No. 83-218)

No details yet.

Regan v. Time, Inc. (No. 82-729)

No details yet.

Regan v. Wald (No. 83-436)

No details yet.

Richardson v. United States (No. 82-2113)

No details yet.

Roberts v. United States Jaycees (No. 83-724)

No details yet.

Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. (No. 83-196)

No details yet.

Russello v. United States (No. 82-472)

T.L.O. was a fourteen-year-old; she was accused of smoking in the girls' bathroom of her high school. A principal at the school questioned her and searched her purse, yielding a bag of marijuana and other drug paraphernalia.

Schall v. Martin (No. 82-1248)

Russell Palmer, a prisoner in a Virginia prison, brought suit against Ted Hudson, an officer at the institution. Hudson had conducted a "shakedown" search of Palmer's locker and cell for contraband. Hudson and another officer also charged Palmer with destroying state property after they discovered a ripped pillowcase near Palmer's cell bunk. Palmer was then ordered to reimburse the State.

Schneider Moving & Storage Co. v. Robbins (No. 82-1860)

No details yet.

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart (No. 82-1721)

No details yet.

SEC v. O'Brien (No. 83-751)

No details yet.

Secretary Of Interior v. California (No. 82-1326)

No details yet.

Secretary Of State Of Md. v. J. H. Munson Co. (No. 82-766)

No details yet.

Securities Industry Assn. v. Board Of Governors (No. 82-1766)

No details yet.

Securities Industry Assn. v. Board Of Governors (No. 83-614)

No details yet.

Segura v. United States (No. 82-5298)

No details yet.

Selective Service System v. Minn. Pub. Int. (No. 83-276)

No details yet.

Silkwood v. Kerr-Mcgee Corp. (No. 81-2159)

No details yet.

Smith v. Robinson (No. 82-2120)

No details yet.

Solem v. Bartlett (No. 82-1253)

Williams was arrested for the murder of a ten-year-old girl who's body he disposed of along a gravel road. State law enforcement officials engaged in a massive search for the child's body. During the search, after responding to an officer's appeal for assistance, Williams made statements to the police (without an attorney present) which helped lead the searchers to the child's body. The defendant's Miranda rights were only read to him after his arrest.

Solem v. Stumes (No. 81-2149)

No details yet.

South Carolina v. Regan (No. 94 ORIG)

No details yet.

South-Central Timber Dev. v. Wunnicke (No. 82-1608)

No details yet.

Southland Corp. v. Keating (No. 82-500)

No details yet.

Spaziano v. Florida (No. 83-5596)

No details yet.

Strickland v. Washington (No. 82-1554)

No details yet.

Summa Corp. v. California Ex Rel. Lands Comm'n (No. 82-708)

No details yet.

Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB (No. 82-945)

No details yet.

Thigpen v. Roberts (No. 82-1330)

No details yet.

Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering (No. 82-629)

No details yet.

Tower v. Glover (No. 82-1988)

No details yet.

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp. (No. 82-1186)

No details yet.

United Building & Constr. Trades v. Mayor (No. 81-2110)

No details yet.

United States v. Arthur Young & Co. (No. 82-687)

No details yet.

United States v. Cronic (No. 82-660)

No details yet.

United States v. Doe (No. 82-786)

No details yet.

United States v. Gouveia (No. 83-128)

No details yet.

United States v. Jacobsen (No. 82-1167)

No details yet.

United States v. Karo (No. 83-850)

No details yet.

United States v. Leon (No. 82-1771)

No details yet.

United States v. Lorenzetti (No. 83-838)

No details yet.

United States v. Mendoza (No. 82-849)

No details yet.

United States v. Morton (No. 83-916)

No details yet.

United States v. One Assortment Of 89 Firearms (No. 82-1047)

Bose Corporation, a loudspeaker manufacturer, brought a product disparagement action against Consumer Union for publishing a negative review of Bose products. Among other comments, Consumer Union's article mistakenly said that Bose loudspeakers caused sounds of individual musical instruments to wander "about the room" when they in fact merely wondered "along the wall[s]." Ruling in favor of Bose, the District Court found that the article's statements were factually wrong and made with "actual malice." On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed as it found the lower court's ruling to be clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court granted Bose certiorari.

United States v. Rodgers (No. 83-620)

No details yet.

United States v. Stauffer Chemical Co. (No. 82-1448)

No details yet.

United States v. Varig Airlines (No. 82-1349)

In 1982, the National Park Service issued a renewable permit to the Community for Creative Non-Violence to conduct a demonstration in Lafayette Park and the Mall in Washington, D.C. The C.C.N.V. demonstration was intended to represent the plight of the homeless, and the demonstrators wished to sleep in tent cities set up in the park. Citing anti-camping regulations, the Park Service denied the request.

United States v. Weber Aircraft Corp. (No. 82-1616)

No details yet.

United States v. Yermian (No. 83-346)

No details yet.

Waller v. Georgia (No. 83-321)

No details yet.

Washington Metro. Transit Auth. v. Johnson (No. 83-747)

No details yet.

Wasman v. United States (No. 83-173)

No details yet.

Welsh v. Wisconsin (No. 82-5466)

No details yet.

Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Vaughn (No. 82-2042)

No details yet.

Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Tully (No. 81-2394)

Congress responded to the Court's decision in Califano v. Goldfarb (1977), which invalidated a gender-based dependency requirement in the allocation of Social Security payments, and to the necessity of preventing bankruptcy in the Social Security fund. It enacted amendments in 1977 to the Social Security Act. The 1977 amendments included a "pension offset" provision which reduced spousal benefits by the amount of certain federal and state pension funds that a Social Security applicant received. However, Congress exempted from this provision spouses who were eligible to receive pension benefits prior to December 1982 and who would have qualified for unreduced spousal benefits prior to the Court's Califano decision.