The Oyez Project: 1987 Term Decisions

Alabama And Mississippi Boundary Case (No. 9 ORIG)

No details yet.

Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc. (No. 87-157)

No details yet.

Amadeo v. Zant (No. 87-5277)

No details yet.

Arizona v. Roberson (No. 87-354)

No details yet.

Arkansas Best Corp. v. Commissioner (No. 86-751)

No details yet.

Bank Of Nova Scotia v. United States (No. 87-578)

No details yet.

Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw (No. 85-1765)

No details yet.

Basic Inc. v. Levinson (No. 86-279)

No details yet.

Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises (No. 87-367)

No details yet.

Bennett v. Arkansas (No. 86-6124)

No details yet.

Berkovitz v. United States (No. 87-498)

No details yet.

Bethesda Hospital Assn. v. Bowen (No. 86-1764)

No details yet.

Boos v. Barry (No. 86-803)

No details yet.

Bowen v. Galbreath (No. 86-1146)

No details yet.

Bowen v. Kendrick (No. 87-253)

No details yet.

Bowen v. Kizer (No. 86-863)

No details yet.

Bowen v. Massachusetts (No. 87-712)

No details yet.

Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. (No. 86-492)

No details yet.

Braswell v. United States (No. 87-3)

No details yet.

Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. (No. 87-283)

No details yet.

Business Electronics v. Sharp Electronics (No. 85-1910)

No details yet.

California v. Greenwood (No. 86-684)

Did the TEFRA violate the Tenth Amendment and intergovernmental tax immunity?

The Court found that its subsequent decisions overruled Pollock so that state bond interest is not immune from a nondiscriminatory federal tax. Therefore, the owners of state bonds have no constitutional authority to exempt taxes on the earned income. TEFRA imposes no direct tax on the states; it is only collected from bondholders. The Act is nondiscriminatory because the regulations are imposed on the federal government as well as the state governments.

Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill (No. 86-1021)

No details yet.

Carpenter v. United States (No. 86-422)

No details yet.

Catholic Conf. v. Abortion Rights Mobilization (No. 87-416)

No details yet.

Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp. (No. 87-505)

No details yet.

Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. (No. 87-499)

No details yet.

Church Of Scientology Of California v. Irs (No. 86-472)

No details yet.

City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing (No. 86-1042)

No details yet.

City Of New York v. Fcc (No. 87-339)

No details yet.

Clark v. Jeter (No. 87-5565)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. Bollinger (No. 86-1672)

No details yet.

Communications Workers v. Beck (No. 86-637)

No details yet.

Coy v. Iowa (No. 86-6757)

No details yet.

D. H. Holmes Co. v. Mcnamara (No. 87-267)

No details yet.

Deakins v. Monaghan (No. 86-890)

No details yet.

Debartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Trades Council (No. 86-1461)

No details yet.

Department Of Navy v. Egan (No. 86-1552)

No details yet.

Doe v. United States (No. 86-1753)

No details yet.

EEOC v. Commercial Office Products Co. (No. 86-1696)

No details yet.

Employment Division v. Smith (No. 86-946)

No details yet.

Etsi Pipeline Project v. Missouri (No. 86-939)

No details yet.

Fdic v. Mallen (No. 87-82)

No details yet.

Felder v. Casey (No. 87-526)

No details yet.

Ferc v. Martin Exploration Management Co. (No. 87-363)

No details yet.

Florida v. Long (No. 86-1685)

Would the execution of a 15 year old violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments"?

Yes. After noting that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court held that the execution of a person under the age of 16 was unconstitutional. In noting the uniform ban among all relevant state statutes against the execution of one under the age of 16, the Court explained that such an act would violate the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." The case was reversed and remanded.

FLRA v. Aberdeen Proving Ground (No. 86-1715)

No details yet.

Forrester v. White (No. 86-761)

No details yet.

Franklin v. Lynaugh (No. 87-5546)

No details yet.

Frisby v. Schultz (No. 87-168)

No details yet.

Gardebring v. Jenkins (No. 86-978)

No details yet.

Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller (No. 86-1172)

No details yet.

Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp. (No. 86-1329)

No details yet.

Gwaltney v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation (No. 86-473)

No details yet.

Hartigan v. Zbaraz (No. 85-673)

Did Lakewood's city ordinance violate freedom of speech rights as protected by the First Amendment?

Yes. The Court held that the licensing ordinance was facially invalid since it gave Lakewood's mayor unbridled discretion to discriminate against permit seekers, based on the content of their publications and viewpoints. This, in turn, promoted self-censorship by publishers and other speakers who sought to curry favor with the mayor's officer in order to secure the approval of their licensing requests. The Court added that while cities may require the periodic licensing of newsracks on public property, even subjecting such procedures to reasonable restrictions, they may not use language which is so open-ended as to give city officials unlimited subjective discretion over permit approvals.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (No. 86-836)

No details yet.

Hicks v. Feiock (No. 86-787)

No details yet.

Honig v. Doe (No. 86-728)

No details yet.

Houston v. Lack (No. 87-5428)

No details yet.

Huddleston v. United States (No. 87-6)

No details yet.

Huffman v. Western Nuclear, Inc. (No. 87-645)

No details yet.

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (No. 86-1278)

No details yet.

Ins v. Abudu (No. 86-1128)

No details yet.

Ins v. Pangilinan (No. 86-1992)

No details yet.

Johnson v. Mississippi (No. 87-5468)

No details yet.

K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc. (No. 86-495)

No details yet.

K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc. (No. 86-495)

No details yet.

Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools (No. 86-7113)

No details yet.

Karcher v. May (No. 85-1551)

No details yet.

Laborers Tr. Fund v. Advanced Lightweight Conc. (No. 85-2079)

No details yet.

Landers v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (No. 86-2037)

No details yet.

Langley v. Fdic (No. 86-489)

No details yet.

Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. (No. 86-957)

No details yet.

Lingle v. Norge Division Of Magic Chef, Inc. (No. 87-259)

No details yet.

Loeffler v. Frank (No. 86-1431)

No details yet.

Lowenfield v. Phelps (No. 86-6867)

No details yet.

Lyng v. Automobile Workers (No. 86-1471)

No details yet.

Lyng v. Northwest Indian CPA (No. 86-1013)

No details yet.

Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Ser (No. 86-1387)

No details yet.

Marino v. Ortiz (No. 86-1415)

No details yet.

Mathews v. United States (No. 86-6109)

No details yet.

Maynard v. Cartwright (No. 87-519)

No details yet.

Mccoy v. Court Of Appeals Of Wisconsin (No. 87-5002)

No details yet.

Mclaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co. (No. 86-1520)

No details yet.

Meyer v. Grant (No. 87-920)

No details yet.

Michigan v. Chesternut (No. 86-1824)

No details yet.

Mills v. Maryland (No. 87-5367)

No details yet.

Mississippi Power v. Miss. Ex Rel. Moore (No. 86-1970)

No details yet.

Monessen Southwestern R. Co. v. Morgan (No. 86-1743)

No details yet.

Morrison v. Olson (No. 87-1279)

No details yet.

Mullins Coal Co. v. Director, Owcp (No. 86-327)

No details yet.

Murray v. United States (No. 86-995)

No details yet.

New Energy Company of Indiana v. Limbach (No. 87-654)

No details yet.

New York State Club Assn. v. New York City (No. 86-1836)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Food & Commercial Workers (No. 86-594)

No details yet.

Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers (No. 86-958)

No details yet.

Omni Capital Int'l v. Rudolf Wolff & Co. (No. 86-740)

No details yet.

P. R. Consumer Affairs Dept. v. Isla Petroleum (No. 86-1406)

No details yet.

Paperworkers v. Misco, Inc. (No. 86-651)

No details yet.

Patrick v. Burget (No. 86-1145)

No details yet.

Patterson v. Illinois (No. 86-7059)

No details yet.

Patterson v. Mclean Credit Union (No. 87-107)

No details yet.

Pennell v. San Jose (No. 86-753)

No details yet.

Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc. (No. 86-1430)

No details yet.

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi (No. 86-870)

No details yet.

Pierce v. Underwood (No. 86-1512)

No details yet.

Pinter v. Dahl (No. 86-805)

No details yet.

Reagan v. Abourezk (No. 86-656)

Did the law discriminate against interstate commerce and violate the Commerce Clause?

Yes. The unanimous Court held that the law's primary purpose was to confer favorable tax treatment on Ohio-produced ethanol which imposed "an economic disadvantage upon out-of-state sellers." Ohio was unable to advance a legitimate local purpose for the law

Regents Of Univ. Of Cal. v. Public Empl. Rel. Bd. (No. 86-935)

No details yet.

Riley v. National Federation Of Blind (No. 87-328)

No details yet.

Ross v. Oklahoma (No. 86-5309)

No details yet.

Satterwhite v. Texas (No. 86-6284)

No details yet.

Schneidewind v. Anr Pipeline Co. (No. 86-986)

No details yet.

Schweiker v. Chilicky (No. 86-1781)

No details yet.

Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Assn. (No. 87-16)

No details yet.

Sheridan v. United States (No. 87-626)

No details yet.

South Carolina v. Baker (No. 94 ORIG)

No details yet.

St. Louis v. Praprotnik (No. 86-772)

No details yet.

Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. (No. 86-1908)

No details yet.

Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman (No. 87-352)

No details yet.

Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman (No. 87-399)

No details yet.

Taylor v. Illinois (No. 86-5963)

No details yet.

Thompson v. Oklahoma (No. 86-6169)

No details yet.

Thompson v. Thompson (No. 86-964)

No details yet.

Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. (No. 86-1845)

No details yet.

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Flight Attendants (No. 86-1650)

No details yet.

Traynor v. Turnage (No. 86-622)

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

The Court found that the statute violated the Constitution. Citing the test which the Court developed in Mills v. Habluetzel (1982) to evaluate equal protection challenges to statutes of limitations in paternity suits, Justice O'Connor held that the Pennsylvania law did not "provide a reasonable opportunity to assert a claim on behalf of an illegitimate child." Furthermore, since, in some circumstances, Pennsylvania permitted paternity suits involving illegitimate children to be initiated after six years, there was no reason why the law in question was necessary to deter the litigation of "stale or fraudulent claims," a legitimate state interest.

Tulsa Professional Collection Services v. Pope (No. 86-1961)

No details yet.

U.S. Postal Service v. Letter Carriers (No. 87-59)

No details yet.

United Savings Assn. v. Timbers Of Inwood Forest (No. 86-1602)

No details yet.

United States Dept. Of Justice v. Julian (No. 86-1357)

No details yet.

United States v. Fausto (No. 86-595)

No details yet.

United States v. Kozminski (No. 86-2000)

No details yet.

United States v. Owens (No. 86-877)

No details yet.

United States v. Providence Journal Co. (No. 87-65)

No details yet.

United States v. Robinson (No. 86-937)

No details yet.

United States v. Taylor (No. 87-573)

No details yet.

United States v. Wells Fargo Bank (No. 86-1521)

No details yet.

Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard (No. 87-336)

No details yet.

Vermont v. Cox (No. 86-1108)

No details yet.

Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn. (No. 86-1034)

No details yet.

Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk (No. 86-1052)

No details yet.

Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust (No. 86-6139)

No details yet.

Webster v. Doe (No. 86-1294)

No details yet.

West v. Atkins (No. 87-5096)

No details yet.

Westfall v. Erwin (No. 86-714)

No details yet.

Wheat v. United States (No. 87-4)

No details yet.

Yates v. Aiken (No. 86-6060)

No details yet.