The Oyez Project: 1986 Term Decisions

324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy (No. 84-2022)

Did the statistical study prove that McCleskey's sentence violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?

The Court held that since McCleskey could not prove that purposeful discrimination which had a discriminatory effect on him existed in this particular trial, there was no constitutional violation. Justice Powell refused to apply the statistical study in this case given the unique circumstances and nature of decisions that face all juries in capital cases. He argued that the data McCleskey produced is best presented to legislative bodies and not to the courts.

Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assocs. (No. 86-497)

No details yet.

Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus (No. 86-104)

No details yet.

Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock (No. 85-920)

No details yet.

American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Scheiner (No. 86-357)

No details yet.

Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell (No. 85-1239)

No details yet.

Anderson v. Creighton (No. 85-1520)

Did the supervisor's search of the office violate Dr. Ortega's "reasonable expectation of privacy" guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment?

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that "the realities of the workplace" made some expectations of privacy among public employees unreasonable when the intrusion was by a supervisor rather than a law enforcement official. Work-related searches, the Court found, were "merely incident to the primary business of the agency," and a warrant requirement would "seriously disrupt the routine conduct of business." The Court thus held that a standard of "reasonableness" was sufficient for work-related intrusions by public employers.

Ansonia Board Of Education v. Philbrook (No. 85-495)

No details yet.

Arizona v. Hicks (No. 85-1027)

No details yet.

Arizona v. Mauro (No. 85-2121)

No details yet.

Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland (No. 85-1370)

No details yet.

Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court (No. 85-693)

No details yet.

Atchison T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Buell (No. 85-1140)

No details yet.

Board Of Pardons v. Allen (No. 86-461)

No details yet.

Booth v. Maryland (No. 86-5020)

No details yet.

Bourjaily v. United States (No. 85-6725)

No details yet.

Bowen v. Gilliard (No. 86-509)

No details yet.

Bowen v. Yuckert (No. 85-1409)

No details yet.

Brock v. Roadway Express, Inc. (No. 85-1530)

No details yet.

Buchanan v. Kentucky (No. 85-5348)

No details yet.

Burger v. Kemp (No. 86-5375)

No details yet.

Burke v. Barnes (No. 85-781)

No details yet.

Burlington No. R. Co. v. Maintenance Employes (No. 86-39)

No details yet.

Burlington No. R. Co. v. Okla. Tax Comm'n (No. 86-337)

No details yet.

Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Woods (No. 85-1088)

No details yet.

California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co. (No. 85-1200)

No details yet.

California Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Guerra (No. 85-494)

No details yet.

California v. Brown (No. 85-1563)

No details yet.

California v. Cabazon Band Of Mission Indians (No. 85-1708)

No details yet.

California v. Rooney (No. 85-1835)

No details yet.

California v. Superior Court Of California (No. 86-381)

No details yet.

Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort Of Colorado, Inc. (No. 85-473)

No details yet.

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams (No. 86-526)

No details yet.

Cerbone v. Conway (No. 84-1947)

No details yet.

Citicorp Industrial Credit, Inc. v. Brock (No. 86-88)

No details yet.

Clarke v. Securities Industry Assn. (No. 85-971)

No details yet.

Colorado v. Bertine (No. 85-889)

No details yet.

Colorado v. Connelly (No. 85-660)

No details yet.

Colorado v. Spring (No. 85-1517)

No details yet.

Commissioner Of Internal Revenue v. Fink (No. 86-511)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. Groetzinger (No. 85-1226)

No details yet.

Connecticut v. Barrett (No. 85-899)

No details yet.

Corporation Of Presiding Bishop v. Amos (No. 86-179)

No details yet.

Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc. (No. 86-322)

No details yet.

Cruz v. New York (No. 85-5939)

No details yet.

Cts Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. Of America (No. 86-71)

No details yet.

Edwards v. Aguillard (No. 85-1513)

No details yet.

Electrical Workers v. Hechler (No. 85-1360)

No details yet.

Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB (No. 85-1208)

No details yet.

FCC v. Florida Power Corp. (No. 85-1658)

No details yet.

Fec v. Massachusetts Citizens For Life, Inc. (No. 85-701)

No details yet.

First Eng. Evan. Luth. Church v. Los Angeles (No. 85-1199)

No details yet.

Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne (No. 86-341)

No details yet.

Frazier v. Heebe (No. 86-475)

No details yet.

Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co. (No. 85-1626)

No details yet.

Granberry v. Greer (No. 85-6790)

No details yet.

Gray v. Mississippi (No. 85-5454)

No details yet.

Greer v. Miller (No. 85-2064)

No details yet.

Griffin v. Wisconsin (No. 86-5324)

No details yet.

Griffith v. Kentucky (No. 85-5221)

No details yet.

Hewitt v. Helms (No. 85-1630)

No details yet.

Hilton v. Braunskill (No. 86-108)

No details yet.

Hitchcock v. Dugger (No. 85-6756)

No details yet.

Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n Of Fla. (No. 85-993)

No details yet.

Hodel v. Irving (No. 85-637)

No details yet.

Houston v. Hill (No. 86-243)

No details yet.

Icc v. Locomotive Engineers (No. 85-792)

No details yet.

Icc v. Texas (No. 85-1222)

No details yet.

Illinois v. Krull (No. 85-608)

No details yet.

Ins v. Cardoza-Fonseca (No. 85-782)

No details yet.

International Paper Co. v. Ouellette (No. 85-1233)

No details yet.

Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. Laplante (No. 85-1589)

No details yet.

Jersey Shore State Bank v. United States (No. 85-1736)

No details yet.

Johnson v. Transportation Agency (No. 85-1129)

No details yet.

Kelly v. Robinson (No. 85-1033)

Did the ordinance violate the Fifth Amendment (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth) which prevents government from taking private property for public use without providing just compensation to the owner of the property?

The Court held that the ordinance violated the Constitution. Noting that the fate of the Church's property had been in limbo for over six years (the suit which it had filed in 1979 had been denied a hearing as late as October of 1985), Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that, because the church was unable to use its property during this time, a "taking" of the property had occurred. Thus, the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment required the government to exercise one of a number of "options" such as amending the regulation or fair payment for the use of the property in order to protect the Church's constitutional rights.

Kentucky v. Stincer (No. 86-572)

No details yet.

Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. Debenedictis (No. 85-1092)

No details yet.

Kungys v. United States (No. 86-228)

No details yet.

Lukhard v. Reed (No. 85-1358)

No details yet.

Lynaugh v. Petty (No. 85-1656)

No details yet.

Martin v. Ohio (No. 85-6461)

No details yet.

Maryland v. Garrison (No. 85-759)

No details yet.

McCleskey v. Kemp (No. 84-6811)

No details yet.

McNally v. United States (No. 86-234)

No details yet.

Meese v. Keene (No. 85-1180)

No details yet.

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor (No. 85-686)

No details yet.

Miller v. Florida (No. 86-5344)

No details yet.

Missouri v. Blair (No. 85-303)

No details yet.

Munro v. Socialist Workers Party (No. 85-656)

No details yet.

N.C. Dept. Of Transp. v. Crest St. Council (No. 85-767)

No details yet.

New York v. Burger (No. 86-80)

No details yet.

Newton v. Rumery (No. 85-1449)

Did 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 apply to Arab minorities?

Yes. The Court held that persons of Arabian ancestry were protected from racial discrimination under Section 1981. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Byron R. White maintained that section 1981 encompassed discrimination even among Caucasians. Justice White noted that history did not support the claim that Arabs and other present-day "Caucasians" were considered to be a single race for the purposes of section 1981. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., in a separate concurrence, added that "Pernicious distinctions among individuals based solely on their ancestry are antithetical to the doctrine of equality upon which this nation is founded."

NLRB v. Electrical Workers (No. 85-1924)

No details yet.

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (No. 86-133)

No details yet.

O'Connor v. Ortega (No. 85-530)

No details yet.

O'connor v. United States (No. 85-558)

No details yet.

O'lone v. Estate Of Shabazz (No. 85-1722)

No details yet.

PBGC v. Yahn & McDonnell, Inc. (No. 86-231)

No details yet.

Pennsylvania v. Finley (No. 85-2099)

No details yet.

Pennsylvania v. Ritchie (No. 85-1347)

No details yet.

Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc. (No. 85-1798)

No details yet.

Perry v. Thomas (No. 86-566)

No details yet.

Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux (No. 85-1043)

No details yet.

Pleasant Grove v. United States (No. 85-1244)

No details yet.

Pope v. Illinois (No. 85-1973)

No details yet.

Puerto Rico v. Branstad (No. 85-2116)

Does the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects a defendant from cruel and unusual punishment, prohibit a jury from considering a victim impact statement during the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial?

Yes. The Court found that the victim impact statement created "a constitutionally unacceptable risk" and violated the Eighth Amendment. Justice Powell argued that in a capital case, the jury's sentencing task is based on the defendant as a unique individual and not on the character or impact of the crime on the victim's family. Allowing the content of a victim impact statement to influence the jury could lead it to choose the death penalty for reasons which "were irrelevant to the [defendant's] decision to kill," thus diverting attention from the facts of the crime. Furthermore, concluded Powell, introducing the "emotionally-charged opinions" of family members into the process would erode the "reasoned decisionmaking" which is crucial in capital cases.

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Durham County (No. 85-1021)

No details yet.

Rankin v. McPherson (No. 85-2068)

No details yet.

Ray v. United States (No. 86-281)

No details yet.

Richardson v. Marsh (No. 85-1433)

No details yet.

Ricketts v. Adamson (No. 86-6)

No details yet.

Rivera v. Minnich (No. 86-98)

No details yet.

Rock v. Arkansas (No. 86-130)

No details yet.

Rockford Life Ins. Co. v. Ill. Dept. Of Re (No. 86-251)

No details yet.

Rose v. Rose (No. 85-1206)

No details yet.

Rotary Int. v. Rotary Club (No. 86-421)

No details yet.

Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji (No. 85-2169)

No details yet.

San Francisco Arts & Athletics v. US Olympic Committee (No. 86-270)

No details yet.

School Bd. Of Nassau County v. Arline (No. 85-1277)

No details yet.

Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb (No. 85-2156)

No details yet.

Shearson/American Express Inc. v. Mcmahon (No. 86-44)

No details yet.

Societe Nat. Ind. Aero. v. U.S. Dist. Court (No. 85-1695)

No details yet.

Solorio v. United States (No. 85-1581)

No details yet.

South Dakota v. Dole (No. 86-260)

No details yet.

Springfield v. Kibbe (No. 85-1217)

No details yet.

Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors In Action (No. 85-184)

No details yet.

Sumner v. Shuman (No. 86-246)

No details yet.

Tanner v. United States (No. 86-177)

No details yet.

Tashjian v. Republican Party Of Connecticut (No. 85-766)

No details yet.

Texas v. New Mexico (No. 65 ORIG)

No details yet.

Tison v. Arizona (No. 84-6075)

Was the search of the stereo equipment (a search beyond the exigencies of the original entry) reasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

No. The Court found that the search and seizure of the stereo equipment violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Citing the Court's holding in Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), Justice Scalia upheld the "plain view" doctrine which allows police officers under some circumstances to seize evidence in plain view without a warrant. However, critical to this doctrine, argued Scalia, is the requirement that warrantless seizures which rely on no "special operational necessities" be done with probable cause. Since the officer who seized the stereo equipment had only a "reasonable suspicion" and not a "probable cause" to believe that the equipment was stolen, the officer's actions were not reconcilable with the Constitution.

Tull v. United States (No. 85-1259)

No details yet.

Turner v. Safley (No. 85-1384)

No details yet.

Tyler Pipe Industries v. Dept. Of Revenue (No. 85-1963)

No details yet.

United States v. Cherokee Nation Of Okla. (No. 85-1940)

Did Congress exceed its spending powers, or violate the Twenty-first Amendment, by passing legislation conditioning the award of federal highway funds on the states' adoption of a uniform minimum drinking age?

No. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that Congress, acting indirectly to encourage uniformity in states' drinking ages, was within constitutional bounds. The Court found that the legislation was in pursuit of "the general welfare," and that the means chosen to do so were reasonable. The Court also held that the Twenty-first Amendment's limitations on spending power were not prohibitions on congressional attempts to achieve federal objectives indirectly. The five percent loss of highway funds was not unduly coercive.

United States v. Dunn (No. 85-998)

No details yet.

United States v. General Dynamics Corp. (No. 85-1385)

No details yet.

United States v. Hohri (No. 86-510)

No details yet.

United States v. John Doe, Inc. I (No. 85-1613)

Did the taking of Connelly's statements as evidence violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

The Court held that because the taking of Connelly's statements as evidence did not involve any element of governmental coercion, no violation of the Due Process Clause occurred. The Court argued that suppressing statements in cases where suspects were not coerced would have no deterrent effect on future violations of the Constitution by the police. The Court noted that "Miranda protects defendants against government coercion leading them to surrender rights protected by the Fifth Amendment; it goes no further than that."

United States v. Johnson (No. 85-2039)

No details yet.

United States v. Mendoza-Lopez (No. 85-2067)

No details yet.

United States v. Merchant (No. 85-1672)

No details yet.

United States v. Paradise (No. 85-999)

No details yet.

United States v. Salerno (No. 86-87)

No details yet.

United States v. Stanley (No. 86-393)

No details yet.

Utah Div. Of State Lands v. United States (No. 85-1772)

Did the Los Angeles ordinance violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution?

Yes. Using the "First Amendment overbreadth doctrine," which allows an individual to challenge a statute on its face which is potentially threatening to others, the Court found that the ordinance violated the Constitution. Justice O'Connor argued that the rule was vague, overly broad, and would have effectively prohibited activities such as reading, talking, or wearing expressive shirts or political buttons in the LAX terminal. Allowing such an ordinance, which touched "the universe of expressive activity" in its totality, would have caused LAX to become a "First Amendment Free Zone," according to O'Connor.

Van Drasek v. Webb (No. 86-319)

No details yet.

Welch v. Texas Highways & Public Transp. Dept. (No. 85-1716)

No details yet.

West v. Conrail (No. 85-1804)

No details yet.

West Virginia v. United States (No. 85-937)

No details yet.

Western Air Lines v. Board Of Equalization (No. 85-732)

No details yet.

Wimberly v. Labor & Industrial Rel. Comm'n (No. 85-129)

No details yet.

Wright v. Roanoke Rede v. & Housing Auth. (No. 85-5915)

No details yet.

Young v. U.S. Ex Rel. Vuitton Et Fils S. A. (No. 85-1329)

No details yet.