The Oyez Project: 1989 Term

Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett (No. 88-2035)

No details yet.

Alabama v. White (No. 89-789)

No details yet.

Astroline Communications v. Shurberg Broadcasting (No. 89-700)

No details yet.

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co. (No. 88-1668)

No details yet.

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (No. 88-1569)

After obtaining a warrant, Ohio police searched the home of Clyde Osborne and found explicit pictures of naked, sexually aroused male adolescents. Osborne was then prosecuted and found guilty of violating an Ohio law that made the possession of child pornography illegal.

Baltimore City Dept. of Social Servs. v. Bouknight (No. 88-1182)

No details yet.

Begier v. IRS (No. 89-393)

No details yet.

Blystone v. Pennsylvania (No. 88-6222)

No details yet.

Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (No. 88-1597)

No details yet.

Boyde v. California (No. 88-6613)

No details yet.

Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers (No. 88-124)

No details yet.

Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin (No. 89-44)

No details yet.

Butler v. McKellar (No. 88-6677)

No details yet.

Butterworth v. Smith (No. 88-1993)

No details yet.

California v. American Stores Co. (No. 89-258)

No details yet.

California v. FERC (No. 89-333)

No details yet.

Carden v. Arkoma Associates (No. 88-1476)

No details yet.

Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Schwalb (No. 87-1979)

No details yet.

Citibank, N.A. v. Wells Fargo Asia Ltd. (No. 88-1260)

No details yet.

Clemons v. Mississippi (No. 88-6873)

No details yet.

Collins v. Youngblood (No. 89-742)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co. (No. 88-1319)

No details yet.

Commissioner, INS v. Jean (No. 89-601)

No details yet.

Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. (No. 89-275)

No details yet.

Crandon v. United States (No. 88-931)

No details yet.

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health (No. 88-1503)

Rosalie Tung was an Asian-American professor who believed that she was denied tenure because of her sex and her race. To investigate her claim, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asked the University for access to Tung's confidential peer review file. Citing the protection of academic freedom, the University refused to cooperate so as to avoid breaching the confidentiality promised to reviewers.

Davis v. United States (No. 89-98)

No details yet.

Department of Labor v. Triplett (No. 88-1671)

No details yet.

Dole v. United Steel Workers of America (No. 88-1434)

No details yet.

Dowling v. United States (No. 88-6025)

No details yet.

Duro v. Reina (No. 88-6546)

No details yet.

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. (No. 89-243)

No details yet.

Employment Division v. Smith (No. 88-1213)

No details yet.

English v. General Electric Co. (No. 89-152)

No details yet.

Ferens v. John Deere Co. (No. 88-1512)

No details yet.

Florida v. Wells (No. 88-1835)

In 1989, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act which made it a crime to destroy an American flag or any likeness of an American flag which may be "commonly displayed." The law did, however, allow proper disposal of a worn or soiled flag. Several prosecutions resulted from the Act. Eichman set a flag ablaze on the steps of the U.S. Capitol while protesting the government's domestic and foreign policy. Another prosecution (United States v. Haggerty) resulted from a flag-burning in Seattle protesting the passage of the Flag Protection Act.Both cases (Eichman's and Haggerty's) were argued together.

Fort Stewart Schools v. FLRA (No. 89-65)

No details yet.

Franchise Tax Board Of California v. Alcan Aluminium (No. 88-1400)

No details yet.

FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Assn. (No. 88-1198)

No details yet.

FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas (No. 87-2012)

No details yet.

General Motors Corp. v. United States (No. 89-369)

No details yet.

Georgia v. South Carolina (No. 74 ORIG)

No details yet.

Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles (No. 88-840)

No details yet.

Grady v. Corbin (No. 89-474)

No details yet.

Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund (No. 88-1105)

No details yet.

Hallstrom v. Tillamook County (No. 88-42)

No details yet.

Hodgson v. Minnesota (No. 88-1125)

Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez was a citizen and resident of Mexico. In cooperation with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Mexican police officers apprehended and transported him to the U.S. border, where he was arrested for various narcotics-related offenses. Following his arrest, a DEA agent sought authorization to search Verdugo-Urquidez's residences for evidence. The Director General of the Mexican Federal Judicial Police authorized the searches, but no search warrant from a U.S. magistrate was ever received. At trial, the district court granted Verdugo-Urquidez's motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that the search violated the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc. v. Sperling (No. 88-1203)

No details yet.

Holland v. Illinois (No. 88-5050)

No details yet.

Horton v. California (No. 88-7164)

No details yet.

Howlett v. Rose (No. 89-5383)

No details yet.

Hughey v. United States (No. 89-5691)

No details yet.

Idaho v. Wright (No. 89-260)

No details yet.

Illinois v. Perkins (No. 88-1972)

No details yet.

Illinois v. Rodriguez (No. 88-2018)

No details yet.

IRS v. FLRA (No. 88-2123)

No details yet.

James v. Illinois (No. 88-6075)

No details yet.

John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp. (No. 88-1083)

No details yet.

Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno (No. 88-1595)

No details yet.

Kansas v. Utilicorp United Inc. (No. 88-2109)

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) challenged 1,250 land-use designations made by the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM). NWF filed suit under section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), claiming that the actions were "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." NWF argued that it had standing to sue because two of its members used public lands "in the vicinity" of lands affected by the BLM's decisions (four other members submitted affidavits claiming that they, too, used lands close to affected areas, but the District Court ruled that the affidavits had been submitted too late).

The BLM challenged the NWF's right to sue, and the District Court agreed. It found that the two affidavits filed in a timely manner did not show that the members had been sufficiently affected to have standing to sue. Furthermore, the court ruled that even if they had had standing to challenge those specific BLM decisions, they would not have had standing to challenge all 1,250.

On appeal, however, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the initial two affidavits were enough to give them standing to challenge all 1,250 decisions. Moreover, the Court ruled that the District Court had abused its discretion by refusing to consider the additional four affidavits.

Keller v. State Bar of California (No. 88-1905)

No details yet.

Kirkpatrick Co. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp. (No. 87-2066)

Under Section 2 of a Minnesota statute regulating a minor's access to abortion, women under 18 were denied access to the procedure until 48 hours after both their parents had been notified. Exceptions were made in the cases of medical emergencies and women who were victims of parental abuse. Section 6 of the law allowed the courts to judicially bypass Section 2 if the young woman could maturely demonstrate that notification would be unwise.

Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp. (No. 87-1955)

No details yet.

Lewis v. Jeffers (No. 89-189)

No details yet.

Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation (No. 89-640)

No details yet.

Lytle v. Household Mfg., Inc. (No. 88-334)

No details yet.

Maislin Industries, US, Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc. (No. 89-624)

No details yet.

Maryland v. Buie (No. 88-1369)

No details yet.

Maryland v. Craig (No. 89-478)

No details yet.

McKoy v. North Carolina (No. 88-5909)

No details yet.

Metro Broadcasting Inc. v. FCC (No. 89-453)

No details yet.

Michigan Citizens for Independent Press v. Thornburgh (No. 88-1640)

No details yet.

Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (No. 88-1897)

No details yet.

Michigan v. Harvey (No. 88-512)

No details yet.

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal (No. 89-645)

No details yet.

Minnesota v. Olson (No. 88-1916)

No details yet.

Missouri v. Jenkins (No. 88-1150)

California law required retailers to pay a 6 percent sales tax on in-state sales of tangible personal property and residents to pay a 6 percent use tax on such property if purchased out of state. Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, incorporated in Louisiana, sold religious materials to California residents through several direct and mail-order "evangelistic crusades." After auditing his ministry, the California Board of Equalization ("Board") told Swaggart that under California law he had to register his ministry as a seller so the Board could collect the appropriate sales and use taxes. After paying the taxes, Swaggart petitioned the Board for a refund. When his petition was rejected, Swaggart challenged the Board in state court. Following two unfavorable rulings below, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Swaggart's petition for certiorari.

New York v. Harris (No. 88-1000)

No details yet.

Ngiraingas v. Sanchez (No. 88-1281)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc. (No. 88-1685)

No details yet.

North Dakota v. United States (No. 88-926)

No details yet.

Northbrook National Ins. Co. v. Brewer (No. 88-995)

No details yet.

Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond (No. 88-1943)

No details yet.

Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (No. 88-805)

No details yet.

Osborne v. Ohio (No. 88-5986)

No details yet.

Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment (No. 88-791)

No details yet.

Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm'n of Illinois (No. 88-1775)

No details yet.

Pennsylvania Public Welfare Dept. v. Davenport (No. 89-156)

No details yet.

Pennsylvania v. Muniz (No. 89-213)

No details yet.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. The LTV Corp. (No. 89-390)

No details yet.

Perpich v. Department of Defense (No. 89-542)

No details yet.

Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney (No. 89-386)

No details yet.

Portland Golf Club v. Commissioner (No. 89-530)

No details yet.

Preseault v. ICC (No. 88-1076)

No details yet.

Reves v. Ernst & Young (No. 88-1480)

No details yet.

Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois (No. 88-1872)

No details yet.

Saffle v. Parks (No. 88-1264)

Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) is an integrated oil company that sells gasoline to consumers through its own retail stations as well as independent ARCO-brand stations. USA Petroleum (USA), a competitor of ARCO, is an independent retail marketer that purchases gasoline from major petroleum companies and resells it under its own brand name. USA sued ARCO under the Clayton Act in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that ARCO had violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring with the independent ARCO-brand stations to sell gasoline at below-market prices (the Clayton Act allows private parties to bring suit when they have been harmed by anticompetitive practices that violate the Sherman Act).

The District Court ruled for ARCO, finding that even if USA could prove the conspiracy, it would not be an "antitrust injury" to USA under the Clayton Act unless it could also prove that the pricing was predatory (that is, that it was intended to drive USA and other competitors out of business). It would be impossible to prove this, the District Court concluded, because ARCO was not dominant enough in the market to exert that sort of power.

A divided panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that it was not necessary to show predatory intent to prove an "antitrust inquiry." All that was necessary was a showing that the party bringing the suit had been harmed by price fixing carried out by the party being sued.

Sawyer v. Smith (No. 89-5809)

No details yet.

Selvage v. Collins (No. 87-6700)

No details yet.

Sisson v. Ruby (No. 88-2041)

No details yet.

Spallone v. United States (No. 88-854)

No details yet.

Steelworkers v. Rawson (No. 89-322)

No details yet.

Stewart v. Abend (No. 88-2102)

No details yet.

Sullivan v. Everhart (No. 88-1323)

No details yet.

Sullivan v. Finkelstein (No. 89-504)

No details yet.

Sullivan v. Stroop (No. 89-535)

No details yet.

Sullivan v. Zebley (No. 88-1377)

While being held in jail, Perkins freely confessed to committing a murder to an undercover police officer who was posing as another inmate.

Swaggart Ministries v. California Board of Equalization (No. 88-1374)

No details yet.

Tafflin v. Levitt (No. 88-1650)

No details yet.

Taylor v. United States (No. 88-7194)

No details yet.

Teamsters v. Terry (No. 88-1719)

No details yet.

Texaco, Inc. v. Hasbrouck (No. 87-2048)

No details yet.

United States v. Dalm (No. 88-1951)

No details yet.

United States v. Eichman (No. 89-1433)

No details yet.

United States v. Energy Resource Co. (No. 89-255)

No details yet.

United States v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (No. 88-1474)

To qualify for federal funding under the Medicaid Act, states must submit to the Secretary of Health and Human Services a plan that establishes a system by which healthcare providers will be reimbursed. Under the Boren Amendment, the reimbursement rates must be "reasonable and adequate" to meet the costs of efficiently operated facilities.

In 1986, a group of hospitals brought sought against the state of Virginia, arguing that its reimbursement rates (which had been approved in 1982 and again in 1986 by the Secretary) were not "reasonable and adequate." The suit was brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, which allows individuals or organizations to bring suit for the "deprivation of any rights ... secured by [federal] laws." Virginia argued that the Boren Amendment had not been intended to create a an enforceable right, but simply to provide guidelines for the Secretary to follow, and that the hospitals therefore could not bring suit under 1983. The state also argued that Congress had intended to prevent private parties from bringing suit to enforce the provisions of the Amendment. The District Court disagreed, allowing the suit to proceed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

United States v. Kokinda (No. 88-2031)

No details yet.

United States v. Montalvo-Murillo (No. 89-163)

No details yet.

United States v. Munoz-Flores (No. 88-1932)

No details yet.

United States v. Ojeda Rios (No. 89-61)

No details yet.

United States v. Sperry Corp. (No. 88-952)

No details yet.

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (No. 88-1353)

In 1986, the Michigan State Police Department created a sobriety checkpoint program aimed at reducing drunk driving within the state. The program included guidelines governing the location of roadblocks and the amount of publicity to be given to the operation. Before the first roadblock went into effect, Rick Sitz, a licensed Michigan driver, challenged the checkpoints and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Sitz was victorious in the Michigan lower courts.

University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC (No. 88-493)

No details yet.

Venegas v. Mitchell (No. 88-1725)

No details yet.

Walton v. Arizona (No. 88-7351)

No details yet.

Washington v. Harper (No. 88-599)

No details yet.

White v. United States (No. 88-928)

No details yet.

Whitmore v. Arkansas (No. 88-7146)

No details yet.

Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assoc. (No. 88-2043)

No details yet.

Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly (No. 89-431)

No details yet.

Zinermon v. Burch (No. 87-1965)

No details yet.