The Oyez Project: 1985 Term

Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Lavoie (No. 84-1601)

No details yet.

Allen v. Illinois (No. 85-5404)

No details yet.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (No. 84-1602)

No details yet.

Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc. (No. 85-437)

No details yet.

At&T Technologies v. Communications Workers (No. 84-1913)

No details yet.

Atkins v. Rivera (No. 85-632)

No details yet.

Attorney General Of N. Y. v. Soto-Lopez (No. 84-1803)

No details yet.

Automobile Workers v. Brock (No. 84-1777)

No details yet.

Baker v. General Motors Corp. (No. 85-117)

No details yet.

Batson v. Kentucky (No. 84-6263)

No details yet.

Bazemore v. Friday (No. 85-93)

No details yet.

Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist. (No. 84-773)

No details yet.

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (No. 84-1667)

Due to rising government budget deficits during the first term of the Reagan Administration, Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Control Act of 1985. The act was designed to eliminate the federal budget deficit by restricting spending during fiscal years 1986 through 1991. Under the law, if maximum allowable deficit amounts were exceeded, automatic cuts, as requested by the Comptroller General, would go into effect. This case was decided together with O'Neill v. Synar and United States Senate v. Synar.

Board Of Governors, Frs v. Dimension Financial (No. 84-1274)

No details yet.

Bowen v. Agencies Opposed To Soc. Sec. Entrap. (No. 85-521)

No details yet.

Bowen v. American Hospital Assn. (No. 84-1529)

No details yet.

Bowen v. City Of New York (No. 84-1923)

No details yet.

Bowen v. Mich. Academy Of Family Physicians (No. 85-225)

No details yet.

Bowen v. Owens (No. 84-1905)

No details yet.

Bowen v. Roy (No. 84-780)

No details yet.

Bowers v. Hardwick (No. 85-140)

No details yet.

Bowsher v. Synar (No. 85-1377)

No details yet.

Brock v. Pierce County (No. 85-385)

No details yet.

Brown-Forman Distillers v. N. Y. Liquor Auth. (No. 84-2030)

No details yet.

Cabana v. Bullock (No. 84-1236)

No details yet.

California v. Ciraolo (No. 84-1513)

No details yet.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett (No. 85-198)

No details yet.

Cleavinger v. Saxner (No. 84-732)

No details yet.

Colorado v. Connelly (No. 85-660)

No details yet.

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor (No. 85-621)

No details yet.

Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (No. 84-1555)

No details yet.

Crane v. Kentucky (No. 85-5238)

No details yet.

Daniels v. Williams (No. 84-5872)

No details yet.

Darden v. Wainwright (No. 85-5319)

No details yet.

Darden v. Wainwright (No. 85-5319)

No details yet.

Davidson v. Cannon (No. 84-6470)

No details yet.

Davis v. Bandemer (No. 84-1244)

In a series of articles, the Philadelphia Inquirer accused Hepps of links to organized crime and of capitalizing on that connection to influence the state legislature. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court favored Hepps and held that the newspaper was obligated to prove its accusations true.

Delaware v. Van Arsdall (No. 84-1279)

No details yet.

Department Of Transp. v. Paralyzed Veterans (No. 85-289)

No details yet.

Department Of Treasury v. Galioto (No. 84-1904)

No details yet.

Diamond v. Charles (No. 84-1379)

No details yet.

Dow Chemical Co. v. United States (No. 84-1259)

No details yet.

East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc. (No. 84-1726)

No details yet.

EEOC v. FLRA (No. 84-1728)

In 1975, eight Chicano individuals were attending a party that was broken up by the Riverside police using tear gas and physical force without a warrant. Subsequently, the eight individuals filed suit in Federal District Court against the city and various police officers under several federal Civil Rights Acts, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The jury found in the individuals' favor and awarded $33,350 in compensatory and punitive damages. The individuals also sought attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 in the amount of $245,456.25, based on 1,946.75 hours expended by their two attorneys at $125 per hour and 84.5 hours expended by law clerks at $25 per hour. Finding both the hours and rates reasonable, the District Court awarded the requested amount, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court found that the fee award was not excessive merely because it exceeded the amount of damages awarded by the jury.

Evans v. Jeff D. (No. 84-1288)

No details yet.

Exxon Corp. v. Hunt (No. 84-978)

No details yet.

FDIC v. Philadelphia Gear (No. 84-1972)

No details yet.

Firefighters v. Cleveland (No. 84-1999)

No details yet.

Fisher v. Berkeley (No. 84-1538)

No details yet.

Ford v. Wainwright (No. 85-5542)

No details yet.

Ftc v. Indiana Federation Of Dentists (No. 84-1809)

No details yet.

Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles (No. 84-1644)

No details yet.

Goldman v. Weinberger (No. 84-1097)

A group of Democrats challenged Indiana's 1981 state apportionment scheme on the ground of political gerrymandering. The Democrats argued that the apportionment unconstitutionally diluted their votes in important districts, violating their rights. A three-judge District Court sustained the Democrats' challenge.

Green v. Mansour (No. 84-6270)

No details yet.

Heath v. Alabama (No. 84-5555)

No details yet.

Henderson v. United States (No. 84-1744)

No details yet.

Hill v. Lockhart (No. 84-1103)

No details yet.

Holbrook v. Flynn (No. 84-1606)

No details yet.

Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington (No. 85-195)

No details yet.

Japan Whaling Assn. v. American Cetacean Soc. (No. 85-954)

No details yet.

Kimmelman v. Morrison (No. 84-1661)

No details yet.

Kuhlmann v. Wilson (No. 84-1479)

In 1979, the Southwestern Power Administration, a federal regulatory body acting on behalf of the Secretary of Energy, increased the cost of electricity generated by federally owned dams under its control. The price hike was initially implemented on an interim basis, and three years later, after furher review, the new rates were made permanent. A group of cities that purchased power from the dams filed suit to recover the extra fees it had paid before the interim rates were made final, claiming that Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 prohibited the imposition of interim fees. The Act stated that new rates would "become effective upon confirmation and approval by the Secretary (of Energy)." The cities asserted that the rates, while in their interim phase, had not yet received "confirmation and approval" from the Secretary and could therefore not be legally implemented.

The Court of Claims sided with the cities, holding that the new rates could only be charged once they received final approval from the Secretary. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed.

Lake Coal Co., Inc. v. Roberts & Schaefer Co. (No. 84-1240)

No details yet.

Lee v. Illinois (No. 84-6807)

No details yet.

Library Of Congress v. Shaw (No. 85-54)

No details yet.

Local 28 v. EEOC (No. 84-1656)

No details yet.

Lockhart v. McCree (No. 84-1865)

No details yet.

Longshoremen v. Davis (No. 85-217)

No details yet.

Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc. (No. 85-390)

No details yet.

Louisiana Public Service Comm'n v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (No. 84-871)

No details yet.

Lyng v. Castillo (No. 85-250)

No details yet.

Lyng v. Payne (No. 84-1948)

No details yet.

Macdonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County (No. 84-2015)

No details yet.

Maine v. Moulton (No. 84-786)

No details yet.

Maine v. Taylor (No. 85-62)

No details yet.

Malley v. Briggs (No. 84-1586)

No details yet.

Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio (No. 83-2004)

No details yet.

McLaughlin v. United States (No. 85-5189)

No details yet.

Mcmillan v. Pennsylvania (No. 85-215)

No details yet.

Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura (No. 85-410)

No details yet.

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (No. 84-1979)

No details yet.

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson (No. 85-619)

No details yet.

Michigan v. Jackson (No. 84-1531)

Orion Manufacturing Corporation (Orion) was a customer of Philadelphia Gear Corporation (PG). To provide a guarantee of payment to PG, Orion obtained a letter of credit for the benefit of PG from Penn Square Bank, N.A. (Bank). If Orion failed to pay an invoice to PG for at least 15 days, PG could draw upon that line of credit, up to $145,200. This type of credit line, meant to guarantee payment to a seller, is referred to as a standby letter of credit. To back up that line of credit, Orion executed an unsecured promissory note in favor of the Bank. This note is referred to as a backup letter of credit. Nothing was due on the backup letter of credit unless PG presented drafts on the standby letter of credit. Thus the backup letter was a contingent promissory note. The Bank did not credit any account of Orion's in exchange for the note, and did not treat its own assets as increased by its acceptance of the note. In 1982, the Bank was declared insolvent and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed its receiver. PG presented drafts on the standby letter of credit for goods delivered before the Bank's insolvency, but the FDIC returned them unpaid. PG sued the FDIC, claiming that the standby letter of credit was an insured deposit under the definition of "deposit" set forth at 12 U.S.C. Section 1813(l)(1), and that PG was therefore entitled to $100,000 in deposit insurance.

Midlantic Nat. Bank v. N. J. Dept. Of E. P. (No. 84-801)

No details yet.

Miller v. Fenton (No. 84-5786)

No details yet.

Moran v. Burbine (No. 84-1485)

No details yet.

Morris v. Mathews (No. 84-1636)

No details yet.

Murray v. Carrier (No. 84-1554)

No details yet.

Nantahala Power & Light v. Thornburg (No. 85-568)

No details yet.

New Mexico v. Earnest (No. 85-162)

No details yet.

New York v. Class (No. 84-1181)

The city of Renton, Washington, enacted a zoning ordinance that prohibited adult motion picture theaters from locating with in 1,000 feet of "any residential zone, single- or multiple-family dwelling, church, park, or school." Playtime Theatres, Inc., challenged the ordinance and sought a permanent injunction against its enforcement.

New York v. P. J. Video, Inc. (No. 85-363)

No details yet.

Nix v. Whiteside (No. 84-1321)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Financial Institution Employees (No. 84-1493)

A Puerto Rican law restricted advertising by the island's casino gambling establishments. Even though gambling was a legal activity in Puerto Rico, the law only allowed advertising that was targeted at tourists.

Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire (No. 85-202)

No details yet.

Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n v. Dayton Schools (No. 85-488)

No details yet.

Pa. Bureau Of Correction v. U.S. Marshals (No. 84-489)

No details yet.

Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n (No. 84-1044)

Goldman was a commissioned officer in the United States Air Force, an Orthodox Jew, and an ordained rabbi. He was not allowed to wear his yarmulke while on duty and in Air Force uniform. An Air Force regulation mandated that indoors, headgear could not be worn "except by armed security police in the performance of their duties."

Papasan v. Allain (No. 85-499)

No details yet.

Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank (No. 84-1616)

No details yet.

Paulussen v. Herion (No. 85-88)

No details yet.

Pembaur v. Cincinnati (No. 84-1160)

No details yet.

Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council (No. 85-5)

No details yet.

Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council (No. 85-5)

No details yet.

Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps (No. 84-1491)

No details yet.

Poland v. Arizona (No. 85-5023)

No details yet.

Posadas de Puerto Rico Ass. v. Tourism Co. of PR (No. 84-1903)

In the morning of July 26, 1984, Lamont McLaughlin and a companion, both wearing stocking masks, entered a bank in Baltimore. McLaughlin displayed a handgun and ordered everyone in the bank to put his hands up and not to move. While McLaughlin remained in the lobby area holding the gun, his companion placed about $3,400 in a brown paper bag. A police officer apprehended the two as they left the bank. The police then found that McLaughlin's gun was not loaded. Ultimately, McLaughlin pleaded guilty to charges of bank robbery and bank larceny and was found guilty of assault during a bank robbery "by the use of a dangerous weapon." The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (No. 84-1560)

In 1982, the state of Pennsylvania enacted legislation that placed a number of restrictions on abortion. The law required the following: "informed consent" of the woman, the dissemination of information concerning the risks of abortion, reporting procedures, the use of certain medical techniques after viability, and the presence of a second physician for post-viability abortions. The initial suit was brought against Richard Thornburgh, the Governor of Pennsylvania.

Private Truck Council Of America, Inc. v. Quinn (No. 85-1423)

No details yet.

Public Service Comm'n v. C. & P. Tel. Co. (No. 84-1362)

No details yet.

Randall v. Loftsgaarden (No. 85-519)

No details yet.

Reed v. Campbell (No. 85-755)

No details yet.

Regents Of University Of Michigan v. Ewing (No. 84-1273)

No details yet.

Renton v. Playtime Theatres Inc. (No. 84-1360)

No details yet.

Riverside v. Rivera (No. 85-224)

No details yet.

Rose v. Clark (No. 84-1974)

No details yet.

Schiavone v. Fortune (No. 84-1839)

No details yet.

Skipper v. South Carolina (No. 84-6859)

No details yet.

Smalis v. Pennsylvania (No. 85-227)

No details yet.

Smith v. Murray (No. 85-5487)

No details yet.

Sorenson v. Secretary Of Treasury (No. 84-1686)

No details yet.

South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc. (No. 84-782)

No details yet.

Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bur. (No. 85-21)

No details yet.

Teachers v. Hudson (No. 84-1503)

No details yet.

Texas v. Mccullough (No. 84-1198)

No details yet.

Thomas v. Arn (No. 84-5630)

No details yet.

Thornburg v. Gingles (No. 83-1968)

No details yet.

Thornburgh v. Amer. Coll. of Obst. & Gyn. (No. 84-495)

No details yet.

Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering (No. 84-1973)

No details yet.

Transcontinental Pipe Line v. State Oil & Gas Bd. (No. 84-1076)

No details yet.

Turner v. Murray (No. 84-6646)

No details yet.

United States v. American Bar Endowment (No. 85-599)

No details yet.

United States v. American College of Physicians (No. 84-1737)

No details yet.

United States v. City of Fulton (No. 84-1725)

No details yet.

United States v. Dion (No. 85-246)

No details yet.

United States v. Hemme (No. 84-1944)

No details yet.

United States v. Hughes Properties, Inc. (No. 85-554)

No details yet.

United States v. Inadi (No. 84-1580)

No details yet.

United States v. James (No. 85-434)

No details yet.

United States v. Koecher (No. 84-1922)

No details yet.

United States v. Lane (No. 84-744)

No details yet.

United States v. Loud Hawk (No. 84-1361)

No details yet.

United States v. Maine (No. 35 ORIG)

No details yet.

United States v. Mechanik (No. 84-1640)

No details yet.

United States v. Mottaz (No. 85-546)

No details yet.

United States v. Quinn (No. 84-1717)

No details yet.

United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. (No. 84-701)

No details yet.

United States v. Rojas-Contreras (No. 84-1023)

No details yet.

United States v. Von Neumann (No. 84-1144)

No details yet.

University Of Tennessee v. Elliott (No. 85-588)

No details yet.

Vasquez v. Hillery (No. 84-836)

No details yet.

Wainwright v. Greenfield (No. 84-1480)

No details yet.

Wardair Canada v. Florida Dept. Of Revenue (No. 84-902)

No details yet.

Whitley v. Albers (No. 84-1077)

No details yet.

Wisconsin Dept. Of Industry v. Gould Inc. (No. 84-1484)

No details yet.

Witters v. Wash. Dept. Of Services For Blind (No. 84-1070)

No details yet.

Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (No. 84-1340)

No details yet.

Young v. Community Nutrition Institute (No. 85-664)

No details yet.