Cases - 1980 term

Diamond v. Bradley

Tue, 14 Oct 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-855

Appellee

Bradley

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Diamond

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 381 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, October 14, 1980

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1981

Advocates

Nicholas Prasinos (on behalf of the Respondents)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Bradley, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Little v. Streater

Tue, 13 Jan 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-6779

Appellee

Streater

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Little

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 1 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1981

Advocates

Jon C. Blue (on behalf of the Appellant)

Stephen J. McGovern (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Little, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Bullington v. Missouri

Wed, 14 Jan 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-6740

Petitioner

Bullington

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Missouri

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 430 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1981

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1981

Advocates

James Cook (on behalf of the Respondent)

Richard H. Sindel (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Bullington, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie

Mon, 30 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1517

Petitioner

Federated Department Stores, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Moitie

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 394 (1981)

Argued

Monday, March 30, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1981

Advocates

Jerome I. Chapman (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Jerrold N. Offstein (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Federated Department Stores, Inc., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: res judicata

None

New York v. Belton

Mon, 27 Apr 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-328

Petitioner

New York

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Belton

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 454 (1981)

Argued

Monday, April 27, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, July 1, 1981

Advocates

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

James R. Harvey (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for New York, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

United States v. Difrancesco

Mon, 06 Oct 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-567

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Difrancesco

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 117 (1980)

Argued

Monday, October 6, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, December 9, 1980

Advocates

Edgar C. NeMoyer (on behalf of the Respondent)

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Edwards v. Arizona

Wed, 05 Nov 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-5269

Petitioner

Edwards

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arizona

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 477 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, November 5, 1980

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1981

Advocates

Crane McClennen (on behalf of the Respondent)

Michael J. Meehan (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Edwards, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miranda Warnings

None

Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc.

Tue, 03 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1144

Petitioner

Texas Industries, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Radcliff Materials, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 630 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, March 3, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, May 26, 1981

Advocates

Dando B. Cellini (on behalf of the Respondents)

Wade H. McCree (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Benjamin R. Slater, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Radcliff Materials, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers

Tue, 02 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1056

Petitioner

Northwest Airlines, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Transport Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 77 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, December 2, 1980

Decided

Monday, April 20, 1981

Advocates

Stephen B. Moldof (on behalf of the Respondents)

Philip A. Lacovara (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Transport Workers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

United States v. Will

Tue, 14 Oct 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-983

Appellee

Will

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 79-1689

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 200 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, October 14, 1980

Decided

Monday, December 15, 1980

Advocates

Kevin M. Forde (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Kenneth S. Geller (Argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

Congress enacted legislation in the late 1960s and early 1970s to adjust the compensation of federal employees, including judges, which provided automatic annual pay raises. However, from 1976 to 1979 Congress intervened and blocked cost-of-living increases which were scheduled to occur.

Question

Did the congressional acts between 1976 and 1979 violate the Constitution's Compensation Clause of Article III?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 455

In two of the years in question, Congress effectively revoked automatic pay increases after the statutes guaranteeing those increases had already taken effect. This amounted to a reduction in salaries for judges and violated the Compensation Clause.

California v. Sierra Club

Wed, 21 Jan 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1252

Petitioner

California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sierra Club

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 79-1502

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 287 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, January 21, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, April 28, 1981

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for California, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 33 U.S.C. 403

None

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague

Mon, 06 Oct 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-938

Petitioner

Allstate Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hague

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 302 (1981)

Argued

Monday, October 6, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 1981

Advocates

Mark M. Nolan (on behalf of Petitioner)

Andreas F. Lowenfeld (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hague, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause

None

American Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. Donovan

Wed, 21 Jan 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1429

Petitioner

American Textile Mfrs. Inst.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Donovan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 79-1583

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 490 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, January 21, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, June 17, 1981

Advocates

George H. Cohen (on behalf of the Union respondents)

Robert H. Bork (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Respondent Marshall)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for American Textile Mfrs. Inst., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Occupational Safety and Health

None

Minnick v. California Dept. Of Corrections

Tue, 02 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1213

Petitioner

Minnick

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California Dept. Of Corrections

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 105 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, December 2, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1981

Advocates

Stuart R. Pollak (on behalf of the Respondents)

Ronald Yank (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for California Dept. Of Corrections, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.

Wed, 04 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1943

Petitioner

Alessi

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 80-193

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 504 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, March 4, 1981

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1981

Advocates

Warren J. Casey (on behalf of Appellees in 79-1943)

Laurence Reich (on behalf of Respondent in 80-193)

Theodore Sachs (on behalf of Appellants in 79-1943)

Marc C. Gettis (on behalf of Petitioners in 80-193)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Schweiker v. Gray Panthers

Wed, 29 Apr 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-756

Petitioner

Schweiker

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gray Panthers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 34 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, April 29, 1981

Decided

Thursday, June 25, 1981

Advocates

George W. Jones (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Gill De Ford (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Schweiker, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Medicaid--provisions of the Social Security Act

None

Rodriguez v. Compass Shipping Co.

Mon, 12 Jan 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1977

Petitioner

Rodriguez

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Compass Shipping Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 596 (1981)

Argued

Monday, January 12, 1981

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1981

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Compass Shipping Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation

None

Flynt v. Ohio

Tue, 24 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-420

Petitioner

Flynt

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ohio

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 619 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, March 24, 1981

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1981

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Ohio, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

None

Parratt v. Taylor

Mon, 02 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1734

Petitioner

Parratt

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Taylor

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 527 (1981)

Argued

Monday, March 2, 1981

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1981

Advocates

Kevin Colleran (on behalf of the Respondent, appointed by this Court)

J. Kirk Brown (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Parratt, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Howe v. Smith

Tue, 28 Apr 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-5392

Petitioner

Howe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Smith

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 473 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, April 28, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, June 17, 1981

Advocates

Barbara E. Etkind (on behalf of the federal Respondents)

John J. Easton, Jr. (on behalf of the state Respondent)

William A. Nelson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Smith, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 5003

None

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August

Wed, 12 Nov 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-814

Petitioner

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

August

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 346 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, November 12, 1980

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1981

Advocates

E. Allan Kovar (on behalf of the Petitioner,)

Susan M. Vance (on behalf of the Respondent,)

Elinor Hadley Stillman (as amici curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for August, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

United States v. Swank

Tue, 09 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1515

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Swank

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 571 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, December 9, 1980

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1981

Advocates

LeRoy Katz (on behalf of the Respondents)

Stuart A. Smith (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Swank, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Rosales-Lopez v. United States

Mon, 12 Jan 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-6624

Petitioner

Rosales-Lopez

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 182 (1981)

Argued

Monday, January 12, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, April 21, 1981

Advocates

John J. Cleary (on behalf of the Petitioner)

George W. Jones (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

American Express Co. v. Koerner

Mon, 20 Apr 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-202

Petitioner

American Express Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Koerner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 233 (1981)

Argued

Monday, April 20, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1981

Advocates

Louis R. Koerner, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Ronald J. Greene (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for American Express Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Truth in Lending

None

San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego

Mon, 01 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-678

Appellee

San Diego

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

San Diego Gas & Electric Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 621 (1981)

Argued

Monday, December 1, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1981

Advocates

C. Alan Sumption (on behalf of the Appellees)

Louis E. Goebel (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for San Diego, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

None

Anderson Bros. Ford v. Valencia

Mon, 23 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-84

Petitioner

Anderson Bros. Ford

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Valencia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 205 (1981)

Argued

Monday, March 23, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1981

Advocates

Aaron J. Kramer (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Alan A. Alop (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Anderson Bros. Ford, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Truth in Lending

None

Pennhurst State School v. Halderman

Mon, 08 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1404

Petitioner

Pennhurst State School

Respondent

Halderman

Consolidation

No. 79-1408

No. 79-1414

No. 79-1415

No. 79-1489

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 1 (1981)

Argued

Monday, December 8, 1980

Decided

Monday, April 20, 1981

Advocates

Thomas M. Kittredge (on behalf of the Petitioners Suburban Counties et al)

Joel I. Klein (on behalf of Petitioners Pennhurst Parents-Staff Association)

David Ferleger (on behalf of the Respondents Terri Lee Halderman et al)

Drew S. Days, III (on behalf of the United States as Respondent)

Thomas K. Gilhool (on behalf of the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens as Respondent)

Allen C. Warshaw (on behalf of the Petitioners Pennhurst State School and Hospital et al)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Pennhurst State School, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 42 U.S.C. 6010

None

Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc.

Tue, 31 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-396

Petitioner

Newport

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fact Concerts, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 247 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, March 31, 1981

Decided

Friday, June 26, 1981

Advocates

Leonard Decof (on behalf of the Respondents)

Guy J. Wells (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Newport, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Board Of Govs., Frs v. Investment Company Inst.

Wed, 15 Oct 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-927

Petitioner

Board Of Govs., Frs

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Investment Company Inst.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 46 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, October 15, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1981

Advocates

G. Duane Vieth (on behalf of the Respondent)

Stephen M. Shapiro (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Board Of Govs., Frs, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 1843

None

U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz

Mon, 06 Oct 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-870

Appellee

Fritz

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 166 (1980)

Argued

Monday, October 6, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, December 9, 1980

Advocates

Daniel P. Byron (on behalf of the Appellee)

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

United States v. Morrison

Wed, 10 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Residence of Morrison PA

United States

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-395

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hazel Morrison

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 361 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, December 10, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 1981

Advocates

Peter Buscemi (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Salvatore J. Cucinotta (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

Hazel Morrison was indicted for distributing heroine and obtained private counsel for her defense. Without her counsel's knowledge two agents of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) conversed with her regarding a related investigation. During this conversation the agents advised that she have a public defender represent her instead of her private counsel. They also told her that the severity of her punishment would depend on how well she cooperated with them. Morrison notified her counselor immediately and did not speak to the agents about the investigation. She unsuccessfully petitioned the District Court to dismiss her indictment on the ground that the agents had violated her Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Morrison then entered a guilty plea to one count of the indictment. On appeal the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that Morrison's Sixth Amendment rights had been violated and ruled to drop all charges against her.

Question

Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit wrongfully dismiss criminal charges on the ground that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated in a way that had no tangible effect upon court proceedings?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

Yes. Justice Byron White authored the opinion for the Court unanimously reversing the Third Circuit's decision. For sake of argument, the Court granted that Morrison's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated, but held that this did not merit the dismissal of all charges since the conduct of the agents did not prejudice the outcome of the trial. The Court maintained that Sixth Amendment violations should not be remedied beyond the scope of the harm they inflicted upon the defendant.

Universities Research Assn. v. Coutu

Mon, 10 Nov 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1945

Petitioner

Universities Research Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Coutu

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 754 (1981)

Argued

Monday, November 10, 1980

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1981

Advocates

Robert E. Mann (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Robert Jay Nye (on behalf of the Respondents)

Harriet S. Shapiro (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Universities Research Assn., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 40 U.S.C. 276

None

Monroe v. Standard Oil Co.

Wed, 04 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-298

Petitioner

Monroe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Standard Oil Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 549 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, March 4, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, June 17, 1981

Advocates

Paul S. McAuliffe (on behalf of the Respondent)

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Standard Oil Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 2021

None

Hodel v. Indiana

Mon, 23 Feb 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-231

Appellee

Indiana

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hodel

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 314 (1981)

Argued

Monday, February 23, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1981

Advocates

Peter Buscemi (on behalf of the Appellants)

G. Daniel Kelly, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hodel, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 30 U.S.C. 1201

None

Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp.

Tue, 31 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-590

Petitioner

Gulf Offshore Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mobil Oil Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 473 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, March 31, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, July 1, 1981

Advocates

Frank E. Caton (on behalf of Respondent Mobil Oil Corporation)

Charles D. Kennedy (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Joseph D. Jamail (on behalf of Respondent Steven Gaedecke)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Gulf Offshore Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 43 U.S.C. 1331

None

Cuyler v. Adams

Tue, 07 Oct 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1841

Petitioner

Cuyler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Adams

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 433 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, October 7, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, January 21, 1981

Advocates

James D. Crawford (on behalf of the Respondent)

Maria Parisi Vickers (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Adams, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 3: Compact Clause

None

Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Hall

Mon, 20 Apr 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1789

Petitioner

Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hall

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 571 (1981)

Argued

Monday, April 20, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, July 7, 1981

Advocates

James Fleet Howell (on behalf of the Respondents)

Reuben Goldberg (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Natural Gas, or Natural Gas Policy Acts

None

Texas Dept. Of Community Affairs v. Burdine

Tue, 09 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1764

Petitioner

Texas Dept. Of Community Affairs

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Burdine

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 248 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, December 9, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, March 4, 1981

Advocates

Hubert L. Gil (on behalf of the Respondent)

Gregory Wilson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Texas Dept. Of Community Affairs, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Beltran v. Myers

Tue, 24 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-5303

Petitioner

Beltran

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Myers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 625 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, March 24, 1981

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1981

Advocates

Richard J. Magasin (on behalf of the Respondents)

Gill Deford (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Beltran, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Medicaid--provisions of the Social Security Act

None

Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division

Tue, 07 Oct 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Indiana State Employment Security Division

10 N Senate Ave Indianapolis IN 46204

Indianapolis, IN 46204

United States

39° 46' 2.8524" N, 86° 9' 48.5928" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-952

Petitioner

Eddie C. Thomas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 707 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, October 7, 1980

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1981

Advocates

Blanca Bianchi de la Torre (on behalf of the Petitioner)

William E. Daily (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

Eddie C. Thomas, a Jehovah's Witness and an employee of Blaw-Knox Foundry & Machinery Co., asked his company to lay him off when it transferred all of its operations to weapons manufacturing. He stated that his religious faith prohibited him from producing arms. His employer refused, so he quit instead. He applied for unemployment compensation benefits under the Indiana Employment Security Act, which the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division denied. The board agreed that he quit because of his religious convictions, but claimed that this was not a "good cause [arising] in connection with [his] work" that would qualify him for benefits. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the decision on the ground that it burdened Thomas' First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion. The Supreme Court of Indiana reinstated the board's initial decision, calling Thomas' decision to quit a "personal philosophical choice" that only indirectly burdened his free exercise right.

Question

Does the Free Exercise Clause require a state to provide unemployment compensation benefits to an employee who quit because of a belief that his religion prohibited him from engaging in the employer's line of work?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Thomas, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Free Exercise of Religion

Yes. In an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Burger, the Court held that the Review Board's denial of unemployment benefits to Thomas violated his First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court of Indiana wrongfully used Thomas' struggle to "articulate" his religious beliefs as grounds to call his decision merely "philosophical." The Court's decisions in _ Everson v. Board of Education_ and Sherbert v. Verner had established that "[a] person may not be compelled to choose between the exercise of a First Amendment right and participation in an otherwise available public program." In his dissent, Justice Rehnquist argued that the free exercise clause did not require a "State to provide direct financial assistance to persons solely on the basis of their religious beliefs."

Lehman v. Nakshian

Tue, 31 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-242

Petitioner

Lehman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nakshian

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 156 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, March 31, 1981

Decided

Friday, June 26, 1981

Advocates

Patricia J. Barry (on behalf of the Respondent)

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Lehman, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Age Discrimination in Employment (ADEA)

None

Jones v. Helms

Tue, 28 Apr 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-850

Appellee

Helms

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Jones

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 412 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, April 28, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1981

Advocates

Carol Atha Cosgrove (on behalf of the Appellant)

James C. Bonner, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Jones, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Privileges and Immunities Clause

None

U.S. Postal Service v. Greenburgh Civic Assns.

Tue, 21 Apr 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-608

Appellee

Greenburgh Civic Assns.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

U.S. Postal Service

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 114 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, April 21, 1981

Decided

Thursday, June 25, 1981

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Appellant)

Jon H. Hammer (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for U.S. Postal Service, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1725

None

County Of Washington v. Gunther

Mon, 23 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-429

Petitioner

County Of Washington

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gunther

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 161 (1981)

Argued

Monday, March 23, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1981

Advocates

Barry Sullivan (on behalf of the United States et al. as amici curiae)

Carol A. Hewitt (on behalf of the Respondents)

Lawrence R. Derr (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Gunther, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Commissioner v. Portland Cement Co. Of Utah

Tue, 13 Jan 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1907

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Portland Cement Co. Of Utah

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 156 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, March 3, 1981

Advocates

Dennis P. Bedell (on behalf of the Respondent)

Stuart A. Smith (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Commissioner, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Hudson v. Louisiana

Mon, 01 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-5688

Petitioner

Hudson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 40 (1981)

Argued

Monday, December 1, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1981

Advocates

Richard O. Burst (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James M. Bullers (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hudson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Allen v. Mccurry

Wed, 08 Oct 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-935

Petitioner

Allen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mccurry

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 90 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 8, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, December 9, 1980

Advocates

Jeffrey J. Shank (on behalf of the Respondent)

John J. Fitzgibbon (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Allen, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Heffron v. Int. Society for Krishna Consciousness

Mon, 20 Apr 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-795

Petitioner

Heffron

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Int. Society for Krishna Consciousness

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 640 (1981)

Argued

Monday, April 20, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1981

Advocates

Laurence H. Tribe (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Kent G. Harbison (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

A Minnesota law allowed the Minnesota Agricultural Society to devise rules to regulate the annual state fair in St. Paul. Minnesota State Fair Rule 6.05 required organizations wishing to sell or distribute goods and written material to do so from an assigned location on the fairgrounds. In other words, walking vendors and solicitors were not allowed. The International Society for Krishna Consciousness challenged the rule, arguing that it restricted the ability of its followers to freely exercise their religious beliefs at the state fair.

Question

May a state, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, confine religious organizations wishing to sell and distribute religious literature at a state fair to an assigned location within the fairgrounds?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Heffron, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Free Exercise of Religion

Using the "valid time, manner, and place" criteria which the Court employs to assess government restrictions of First Amendment activities, the Court held that Rule 6.05 did not violate the Constitution. Since the rule was applied equally to all groups wanting to solicit at the fairgrounds, not making restrictions based on the content of a group's message, and because the state had an important interest in "protecting the safety and convenience" of the fair's patrons, Justice White argued that the rule's restrictions were legitimate. Allowing all religious, nonreligious, and commercial groups to move about the grounds distributing literature and soliciting funds would result in "widespread disorder" which would be potentially dangerous to the fair's visitors.

Rowan Cos. v. United States

Tue, 21 Apr 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-780

Petitioner

Rowan Cos.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 247 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, April 21, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1981

Advocates

Stuart A. Smith (on behalf of the Respondent)

K. Martin Worthy (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Rowan Cos., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

J. Truett Payne Co. v. Chrysler Motors Corp.

Wed, 21 Jan 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1944

Petitioner

J. Truett Payne Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chrysler Motors Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 557 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, January 21, 1981

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1981

Advocates

C. Lee Reeves (on behalf of the Petitioner)

J. Ross Forman, III (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for J. Truett Payne Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Robinson-Patman

None

Robbins v. California

Mon, 27 Apr 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-148

Petitioner

Robbins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 420 (1981)

Argued

Monday, April 27, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, July 1, 1981

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Robbins, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Delaware State College v. Ricks

Tue, 07 Oct 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-939

Petitioner

Delaware State College

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ricks

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 250 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, October 7, 1980

Decided

Monday, December 15, 1980

Advocates

Nicholas H. Rodriguez (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Judith E. Harris (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Delaware State College, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Dames & Moore v. Regan

Wed, 24 Jun 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Dames & Moore

911 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles CA 90017

Los Angeles, CA 90017

United States

34° 3' 1.9764" N, 118° 15' 35.91" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2078

Petitioner

Dames & Moore

Respondent

Regan

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 654 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, June 24, 1981

Decided

Thursday, July 2, 1981

Advocates

Thomas G. Shack, Jr. (Argued the cause for intervenor-respondent Islamic Republic of Iran)

C. Stephen Howard (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Eric M. Lieberman (Argued the cause for intervenor-respondent Bank Markazi Iran)

Rex E. Lee (Argued the cause for the the federal respondents)

Facts of the Case

In reaction to the seizure of the U.S. embassy and American nationals in Iran, President Jimmy Carter invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and froze Iranian assets in the United States. When the hostages were released in 1981, Treasury Secretary Donald Regan affirmed the agreements made the Carter administration that terminated all legal proceedings against the Iranian government and created an independent Claims Tribunal. Dames & Moore attempted to recover over $3 million owed to it by the Iranian government and claimed the executive orders were beyond the scope of presidential power.

Question

Did the president have the authority to transfer Iranian funds and to nullify legal claims against Iran?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Regan, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 50 U.S.C. 1702

The Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act constituted a specific congressional authorization for the President to order the transfer of Iranian assets. The Court further held that although the IEEPA itself did not authorize the presidential suspension of legal claims, previous acts of Congress had "implicitly approved" of executive control of claim settlement. The Court emphasized the narrowness of its ruling, limiting the decision to the facts of the case.

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord

Wed, 12 Nov 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1420

Petitioner

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Risjord

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 368 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, November 12, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 1981

Advocates

Harvey Grossman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John R. Gibson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

Weaver v. Graham

Wed, 05 Nov 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-5780

Petitioner

Weaver

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Graham

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 24 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, November 5, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1981

Advocates

Thomas C. MacDonald, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Wallace E. Allbritton (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Weaver, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 10: Ex Post Facto

None

United States v. Cortez

Mon, 01 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-404

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cortez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 411 (1981)

Argued

Monday, December 1, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, January 21, 1981

Advocates

Barbara E. Etkind (on behalf of the Petitioner)

S. Jeffrey Minker (on behalf of the Respondent, Jesus E. Cortez)

Bernardo P. Velasco (on behalf of the Respondent Pedro Hernandez-Loera)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Rostker v. Goldberg

Tue, 24 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Congress

Constitution and Delaware Street Washington D.C. 20002

Washington 20002

United States

38° 53' 31.1496" N, 77° 0' 29.1744" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-251

Appellee

Goldberg

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Rostker

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 57 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, March 24, 1981

Decided

Thursday, June 25, 1981

Advocates

Wade H. McCree (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Donald L. Weinberg (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

After the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in early 1980, President Jimmy Carter reactivated the draft registration process. Congress agreed with Carter's decision, but did not enact his recommendation that the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) be amended to include the registration of females. A number of men challenged the constitutionality of the MSSA, and the challenge was sustained by a district court.

Question

Did the MSSA's gender distinctions violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Rostker, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that Congress's decision to exempt women from registration "was not the 'accidental by-product of a traditional way of thinking about females'" and did not violate the Due Process Clause. The Court found that men and women, because of combat restrictions on women, were not "similarly situated" for the purposes of draft registration. The Court also upheld Congress's judgment that the administrative and military problems that would be created by drafting women for noncombat roles were sufficient to justify the Military Selective Service Act.

Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Reis

Tue, 24 Feb 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1777

Petitioner

Complete Auto Transit, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 401 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, February 24, 1981

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1981

Advocates

R. Ian Hunter (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Hiram S. Grossman (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Reis, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Ball v. James

Mon, 23 Feb 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1740

Appellee

James

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Ball

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 355 (1981)

Argued

Monday, February 23, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, April 29, 1981

Advocates

Bruce E. Meyerson (on behalf of Roland James et al)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Ball, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Steadman v. SEC

Wed, 03 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1266

Petitioner

Steadman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Securities and Exchange Commission

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 91 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, December 3, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, February 25, 1981

Advocates

Peter J. Nickles (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Ralph C. Ferrara (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for SEC, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Administrative Procedure, or Administrative Orders Review

None

Ftc v. Standard Oil Co. Of Cal.

Wed, 15 Oct 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-900

Petitioner

Ftc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Standard Oil Co. Of Cal.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 232 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 15, 1980

Decided

Monday, December 15, 1980

Advocates

Wade H. McCree (on behalf of the Petitioners)

George A. Sears (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Ftc, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Administrative Procedure, or Administrative Orders Review

None

Maryland v. Louisiana

Mon, 19 Jan 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83 ORIG

Plaintiff

Maryland

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 725 (1981)

Argued

Monday, January 19, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, May 26, 1981

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Maryland, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Lassiter v. Department Of Social Services

Mon, 23 Feb 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-6423

Petitioner

Lassiter

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Department Of Social Services

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 18 (1981)

Argued

Monday, February 23, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1981

Advocates

Leowen Evans (on behalf of the Petitioner pro hac vice)

Steven Mansfield Shaber (on behalf of North Carolina as amicus curiae)

Thomas Russell Odom (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Department Of Social Services, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

CBS, Inc. v. FCC

Tue, 03 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-207

Petitioner

CBS, Inc.

Respondent

Federal Communications Commission

Consolidation

American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission et al., No. 80-213

National Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission et al., No. 80-214

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 367 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, March 3, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, July 1, 1981

Advocates

Stephen M. Shapiro (on behalf of the Respondents, The Federal Communications Commission and The United States)

Floyd Abrams (on behalf of Petitioner National Broadcasting Company, Inc)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for FCC, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Communication Act of 1934

None

Donovan v. Dewey

Tue, 28 Apr 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-901

Appellee

Dewey

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Donovan

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 594 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, April 28, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, June 17, 1981

Advocates

Francis R. Croak (on behalf of the Appellees)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Donovan, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 30 U.S.C. 813

None

Doe v. Delaware

Mon, 12 Jan 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-5932

Appellee

Delaware

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Doe

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 382 (1981)

Argued

Monday, January 12, 1981

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1981

Advocates

Gary A. Myers (on behalf of the Appellants)

Regina M. Small (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Delaware, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Plumbers & Pipefitters v. Plumbers & Pipefitters

Wed, 29 Apr 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-710

Petitioner

Plumbers & Pipefitters

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Plumbers & Pipefitters

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 615 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, April 29, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1981

Advocates

Laurence E. Gold (on behalf of the Petitioners)

John Axelrod (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Plumbers & Pipefitters, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Kirchberg v. Feenstra

Wed, 10 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1388

Appellee

Feenstra

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Kirchberg

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 455 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, December 10, 1980

Decided

Monday, March 23, 1981

Advocates

Alan F. Schoenberger (on behalf of the Appellant Pro Hoc Vice)

Barbara Hausman-Smith (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Feenstra, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Steagald v. United States

Wed, 14 Jan 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-6777

Petitioner

Steagald

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 204 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, April 21, 1981

Advocates

John Richard Young (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Steagald, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Rosewell v. Lasalle National Bank

Mon, 10 Nov 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1157

Petitioner

Rosewell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lasalle National Bank

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 503 (1981)

Argued

Monday, November 10, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1981

Advocates

Henry A. Hauser (on behalf of the Petitioners)

James L. Fox (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rosewell, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1341

None

Milwaukee v. Illinois

Tue, 02 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-408

Petitioner

Milwaukee

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 304 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, December 2, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, April 28, 1981

Advocates

Elwin J. Zarwell (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Joseph V. Karaganis (on behalf of the Respondents)

Andrew J. Levander (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Milwaukee, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Middlesex Cty. Sewerage Auth. v. Sea Clammers

Tue, 24 Feb 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1711

Petitioner

Middlesex Cty. Sewerage Auth.

Respondent

Sea Clammers

Consolidation

No. 79-1754

No. 79-1760

No. 80-12

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 1 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, February 24, 1981

Decided

Thursday, June 25, 1981

Advocates

Milton B. Conford (on behalf of the non-federal Petitioners in Nos. 79-1711, 79-1754 & 79-1760)

Robert P. Corbin (on behalf of the Respondents other than federal)

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of the federal parties as Petitioners in No. 80-12 and as Respondents in Nos. 79-1711, 79-1754 & 79-1760)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Middlesex Cty. Sewerage Auth., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water), plus amendments

None

St. Martin Lutheran Church v. South Dakota

Tue, 03 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-120

Petitioner

St. Martin Lutheran Church

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

South Dakota

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 772 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, March 3, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, May 26, 1981

Advocates

Mark V. Meierhenry (on behalf of the Respondent)

Edward Thomas Schilling (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Barry Sullivan (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Allen R. Snyder (on behalf of Alabama and Nevada as amici curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for St. Martin Lutheran Church, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 26 U.S.C. 3309

None

Diamond v. Diehr

Tue, 14 Oct 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1112

Petitioner

Diamond

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Diehr

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 175 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, October 14, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, March 3, 1981

Advocates

Robert E. Wichersham (on behalf of the Respondents)

Robert E. Wickersham (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace ()

Facts of the Case

Engineers James Diehr and Theodore Lutton invented an improved press that cured rubber by controlled heating. The press contained a temperature probe which measured the temperature rise of the rubber from within the press. By repeatedly calculating the rubber cure time from this temperature measurement and comparing this computed cure time to the actual elapsed time, the computer was able to determine precisely when to open the press and eject the cured rubber, which then emerged perfectly cured. The patent examiner, viewing all computer programs as unpatentable because of the earlier Supreme Court decision Gottschalk v. Benson (1972), rejected their patent application because, he argued, the inventors had simply combined an unpatentable program with a conventional rubber curing press. An appellate court reversed the Examiner and ordered a patent to issue. The Commissioner of Patents then petitioned successfully to have the Supreme Court review this decision. Before the Supreme Court, the inventors' attorney argued that the steps of continuously measuring temperature and repeatedly recalculating the rubber cure time and comparing it to the elapsed time were new steps that were worthy of patent protection.

Question

Can one patent a machine that transforms materials physically under the control of a programmed computer?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Diehr, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 35 U.S.C. 101

Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, the court held that a machine which transforms materials physically under the control of a programmed computer is patentable. In addition, and without overruling the earlier Gottschalk v. Benson decision holding that a mathematical procedure cannot be patented, the majority in Diehr said the Benson decision did not render all computer programs unpatentable, contrary to what Justice John Paul Stevens argued in his strong dissenting opinion in Diehr. The Diehr court left undecided the question of whether computer programs standing by themselves could ever be patentable. Immediately following the Diehr ruling, software patent applications began flowing into the Patent Office in a steady stream that remains undiminished today. (Thirteen years later, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in In re Alappat, ruled that virtually all computer programs are patentable.)

Democratic Party of the United States. v. Wisconsin

Mon, 08 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Location

1980 Democratic National Convention, Madison Square Garden

4 Pennsylvania Plaza New York NY 10001

New York, NY 10001

United States

40° 44' 58.9056" N, 73° 59' 29.616" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1631

Appellant

Democratic Party of the United States

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Wisconsin

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 107 (1981)

Argued

Monday, December 8, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, February 25, 1981

Advocates

Ronald E. Eastman (on behalf of the Appellants)

Robert H. Friebert (on behalf of the Appellees)

Bronson C. La Follette (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

The Democratic Party of the United States (National Party) required that delegates sent to its National Convention were chosen exclusively by voters affiliated with the party, but the state of Wisconsin allowed non-Democrats to participate in state primaries. In the primary, voters expressed their choice among Presidential candidates for the Democratic Party's nomination. Although the Wisconsin Democratic Party (State Party) selected delegates at a caucus occurring after the primary, Wisconsin law required these delegates to allot their votes at the National Convention in accord with the amount of support each candidate received in the primary. The National Party prohibited the State Party delegates from participating in the 1980 National Convention because of non-Democrat influence in the state primary. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the National Party must admit the delegates since Wisconsin had a "compelling interest" to maintain the "open" feature of its primary system.

Question

Can a state compel a National Party Convention to admit delegates from its state if those delegates were selected in a manner violating the National Party's rules?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Democratic Party Of U.S., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

No. In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Potter Stewart the Court reversed the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Referring to its decision in Cousins v. Wigoda, the Court held that the "First Amendment freedom to gather in association for the purpose of advancing shared beliefs is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by any State." Granting states the power to place delegates in a National Convention over party objections to how they were selected would impair the right of political parties to associate with whom they wish, especially when non-party members could influence the interests of the delegates. Justice Lewis Powell argued in his dissent that Wisconsin's "compelling interest" to involve non-affiliated voters in the primary justified this burden on the freedom of association, although the majority held that this could be accomplished without intruding upon internal party rules.

First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB

Tue, 21 Apr 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-544

Petitioner

First National Maintenance Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 666 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, April 21, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1981

Advocates

Norton J. Come (on behalf of the Respondent)

Sanford E. Pollack (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for First National Maintenance Corp., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe

Mon, 30 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-11

Petitioner

Merrion

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jicarilla Apache Tribe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Amoco Production Co. et al. v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe et al., No. 80-15

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 130 (1982)

Argued

Monday, March 30, 1981

Reargued:

Wednesday, November 4, 1981

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1982

Advocates

John F. Cooney (on behalf of the Petitioners Amoco Production Company and Marathon Oil Company)

Louis F. Claiborne (on behalf of the Respondents)

Jason W. Kellahin (on behalf of the Petitioners Merrion and Bayless et al)

Robert J. Nordhaus (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell

Tue, 24 Feb 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-169

Petitioner

United Parcel Service, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mitchell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 56 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, February 24, 1981

Decided

Monday, April 20, 1981

Advocates

Bernard G. Segal (on behalf of the Petitioner)

David Jaroslawicz (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United Parcel Service, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System

Tue, 13 Jan 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-2006

Petitioner

Barrentine

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arkansas-Best Freight System

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 728 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1981

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1981

Advocates

S. Walton Maurras (on behalf of the Respondents)

David C. Vladeck (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Barrentine, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Vincent v. Texas

Wed, 05 Nov 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-5962

Appellee

Texas

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Vincent

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 199 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, November 5, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, December 9, 1980

Advocates

Douglas M. Becker (on behalf of the Appellee)

Robert D. McCutcheon (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Texas, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Arizona v. Manypenny

Mon, 10 Nov 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-621

Petitioner

Arizona

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Manypenny

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 232 (1981)

Argued

Monday, November 10, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, April 21, 1981

Advocates

Daniel Jesse Smith (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James D. Whitney (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Arizona, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

Mccarty v. Mccarty

Mon, 02 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-5

Appellee

Mccarty

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mccarty

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 210 (1981)

Argued

Monday, March 2, 1981

Decided

Friday, June 26, 1981

Advocates

Mattaniah Eytan (on behalf of the Appellant)

Walter T. Winter (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mccarty, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 10 U.S.C. 1431

None

Carter v. Kentucky

Wed, 14 Jan 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-5060

Petitioner

Carter

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kentucky

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 288 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1981

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1981

Advocates

Robert V. Bullock (on behalf of the Respondent)

Kevin Michael McNally (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Carter, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Michigan v. Summers

Wed, 25 Feb 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1794

Petitioner

Michigan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Summers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 692 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, February 25, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1981

Advocates

Bruce J. Ennis, Jr. (on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae)

Timothy A. Baughman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Elliott Schulder (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Gerald M. Lorence (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Michigan, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co.

Mon, 03 Nov 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Minnesota State Legislature

100 Constitution Ave St. Paul MN 55103

St. Paul, MN 55103

United States

44° 57' 16.2288" N, 93° 6' 13.6224" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1171

Petitioner

Minnesota

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Clover Leaf Creamery Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 456 (1981)

Argued

Monday, November 3, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, January 21, 1981

Advocates

Leonard J. Keyes (on behalf of the Respondents)

Kenneth E. Raschke, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Harlon L. Dalton (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

Minnesota enacted a statute prohibiting the sale of milk and milk products in non-refillable, non-returnable plastic containers. Clover Leaf Creamery sued to overturn the law. A Minnesota District Court found that the statute did not fulfill the legislature's purpose. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision.

Question

Did the Minnesota statute violate the Commerce clause of Article I or the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Minnesota, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

No and no. Writing for the majority in a 7-1 decision, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. maintained that Minnesota's statute was not unconstitutional, acknowledging that the legislature had an interest in promoting resource conservation and resolving solid waste disposal issues. The difference between non-reusable plastic containers and paper or reusable plastic containers was "rationally related" to the legislature's purpose, and therefore not unconstitutional under the rational basis test set forth in New Orleans v. Dukes. The statute banned sale of all milk in the specified containers and did not distinguish by seller, and therefore did not violate the commerce clause. Justice Powell wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

County Of Imperial v. Munoz

Wed, 15 Oct 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1003

Petitioner

County Of Imperial

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Munoz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 54 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 15, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, December 2, 1980

Advocates

William H. Kronberger, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondents)

James H. Harmon (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for County Of Imperial, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2283

None

Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana

Mon, 30 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-581

Appellee

Montana

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Commonwealth Edison Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 609 (1981)

Argued

Monday, March 30, 1981

Decided

Thursday, July 2, 1981

Advocates

William P. Rogers (on behalf of the Appellants)

Michael T. Greely (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Montana, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Recl. Assn.

Mon, 23 Feb 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1538

Appellee

Virginia Surface Mining & Recl. Assn.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hodel

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 79-1596

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 264 (1981)

Argued

Monday, February 23, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1981

Advocates

J. Marshall Coleman (on behalf of Appellees (No. 79-1538) and of Appellants (No. 79-1596))

Peter Buscemi (on behalf of Appellant (No. 79-1538) and of Appellees (No. 79-1596))

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hodel, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 30 U.S.C. 1201

None

EEOC v. Associated Dry Goods Corp.

Mon, 03 Nov 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1068

Petitioner

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Associated Dry Goods Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 590 (1981)

Argued

Monday, November 3, 1980

Decided

Monday, January 26, 1981

Advocates

Roger S. Kaplan (on behalf of the Respondent)

Barry Sullivan (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for EEOC, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Haig v. Agee

Wed, 14 Jan 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Location

U.S. Department of State

2201 C Street NW Washington DC 20520

Washington, DC 20520

United States

38° 53' 38.4684" N, 77° 2' 57.93" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-83

Petitioner

Haig

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Agee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 280 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 29, 1981

Advocates

Wade H. McCree (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Melvin L. Wulf (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

In 1974, Philip Agee, a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, announced a campaign "to fight the United States CIA wherever it is operating." Over the next several years, Agee successfully exposed a number of CIA agents and sources working in other countries. When Secretary of State Alexander Haig revoked Agee's passport, Agee filed suit claiming that Haig did not have congressional authorization to do so. Agee also claimed that the action violated his right to travel, his First Amendment right to criticize the government, and his Fifth Amendment Due Process rights.

Question

Did the President, acting through the Secretary of State, have the constitutional authority to revoke the passport?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Haig, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 22 U.S.C. 211

In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that Passport Act of 1926 and other congressional statutes implicitly granted the Secretary of State the power to revoke passports. The Court noted Congress's historical recognition of "Executive authority to withhold passports on the basis of substantial reasons of national security and foreign policy." The Court further held that because the regulations were limited to cases in which there was a likelihood of "serious damage" to foreign policy, Agee's claims concerning the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the right to travel were "without merit."

Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego

Wed, 25 Feb 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Location

City of San Diego

202 C Street San Diego CA 92101

San Diego, CA 92101

United States

32° 43' 0.7788" N, 117° 9' 49.1472" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-195

Appellee

Metromedia, Inc. et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

City of San Diego et al.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 490 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, February 25, 1981

Decided

Thursday, July 2, 1981

Advocates

Floyd Abrams (on behalf of the Appellants)

C. Alan Sumption (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

The city of San Diego banned most outdoor advertising display signs in order to improve the city's appearance and prevent dangerous distractions to motorists. Only "onsite" billboards with a message relating to the property they stood on would be permitted. Upon petition by a coalition of businesses owning advertising signs, a trial court ruled that the ban was an unconstitutional exercise of the city's police powers and hindered First Amendment rights of the businesses. The California Court of Appeals affirmed that the city had exceeded its police powers, but the California Supreme Court reversed this judgment.

Question

Does a city ban on "offsite" outdoor advertising signs violate First and Fourteenth Amendment provisions for free speech?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Metromedia, Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. Justice Byron White wrote the opinion for a 6-3 court. The ban's exception allowing "onsite" advertising discriminated against noncommercial speech. It allowed businesses in commercial properties to interrupt city motorists so long as it was with their own messages yet barred noncommercial advertisers from causing the same level of interruption. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger dissented and viewed the "onsite" exception to the ban as "essentially negligible" rather than unconstitutional favoritism. However the Court held that affording "a greater degree of protection to commercial than to noncommercial speech" reversed the long-standing Court precedent to show greater deference to noncommercial speech.

Schweiker v. Wilson

Tue, 02 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1380

Appellee

Wilson

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Schweiker

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 221 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, December 2, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, March 4, 1981

Advocates

Elliott Schulder (on behalf of the Appellant)

James D. Weill (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Schweiker, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Mcdaniel v. Sanchez

Mon, 02 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-180

Petitioner

Mcdaniel

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sanchez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 130 (1981)

Argued

Monday, March 2, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1981

Advocates

Robert G. Parmley (on behalf of the Respondents)

Richard A. Hall (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Sanchez, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

None

Clayton v. Automobile Workers

Wed, 04 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-5049

Petitioner

Clayton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Automobile Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 80-54

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 679 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, March 4, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, May 26, 1981

Advocates

Everett F. Meiners (on behalf of Petitioner ITT Gilfillan, etc)

John T. McTernan (on behalf of Petitioner (No. 80-5049) and Respondent (No. 80-54) Clayton; appointed by this Court)

M. Jay Whitman (on behalf of Respondents UAW and its Local 509)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Clayton, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies Inc. v. Beckwith

Tue, 14 Oct 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1033

Appellee

Beckwith

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies Inc.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 155 (1980)

Argued

October 14-15, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, December 9, 1980

Advocates

Harry A. Stewart (on behalf of the Appellees)

Harvey M. Alper (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

Epa v. National Crushed Stone Assn.

Tue, 07 Oct 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-770

Petitioner

Epa

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Crushed Stone Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 64 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, October 7, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, December 2, 1980

Advocates

George C. Freeman, Jr. (on behalf of Consolidation Coal Company et al., Respondents)

Theodore L. Garrett (on behalf of National Crushed Stone Association et al., Respondents)

Andrew J. Levander (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Epa, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water), plus amendments

None

Dennis v. Sparks

Wed, 08 Oct 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1186

Petitioner

Dennis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sparks

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 24 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 8, 1980

Decided

Monday, November 17, 1980

Advocates

Finley L. Edmonds (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Garland F. Smith (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Sparks, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

United Mine Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board

Tue, 28 Apr 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-289

Petitioner

United Mine Workers of America, Local No. 1854, et al.

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board, et al.

Consolidation

NLRB v. Amax Coal Co., No. 80-692

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 322 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, April 28, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 29, 1981

Advocates

Harrison Combs (on behalf of the Petitioners United Mine Workers et al)

Harlon L. Dalton (on behalf of the Petitioner National Labor Relations Board)

Daniel B. Gruender (on behalf of the Respondents Amax Coal Company et al)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for NLRB, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Fedorenko v. United States

Wed, 15 Oct 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-5602

Petitioner

Fedorenko

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 490 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, October 15, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, January 21, 1981

Advocates

Benjamin R. Civiletti (on behalf of the Respondent)

Brian M. Gildea (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Sumner v. Mata

Tue, 09 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1601

Petitioner

Sumner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mata

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 539 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, December 9, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, January 21, 1981

Advocates

Thomas A. Brady (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Ezra Hendon (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Sumner, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Rubin v. United States

Wed, 12 Nov 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1013

Petitioner

Rubin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 424 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, November 12, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, January 21, 1981

Advocates

Louis Bender (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Stephen M. Shapiro (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

National Gerimedical Hospital v. Blue Cross

Wed, 29 Apr 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-802

Petitioner

National Gerimedical Hospital

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Blue Cross

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 378 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, April 29, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1981

Advocates

Wade H. McCree (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Erwin N. Griswold (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Joshua F. Greenberg (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for National Gerimedical Hospital, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Watkins v. Sowders

Mon, 10 Nov 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-5949

Petitioner

Watkins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sowders

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 79-5951

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 341 (1981)

Argued

Monday, November 10, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 1981

Advocates

Frank W. Heft, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Victor Fox (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Sowders, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard

Mon, 30 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-441

Petitioner

Gulf Oil Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bernard

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 89 (1981)

Argued

Monday, March 30, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1981

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bernard, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Carson v. American Brands, Inc.

Wed, 10 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1236

Petitioner

Carson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

American Brands, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 79 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, December 10, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, February 25, 1981

Advocates

Harlon L. Dalton (on behalf of the United States and the E.E.O.C. as amici curiae)

Jay J. Levit (on behalf of the Respondent Unions)

Napoleon B. Williams, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Henry T. Wickham (on behalf of the Respondent American Brands, Inc)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Carson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1292

None

Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, Owcp

Wed, 08 Oct 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-816

Petitioner

Potomac Electric Power Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Director, Owcp

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 268 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 8, 1980

Decided

Monday, December 15, 1980

Advocates

Richard W. Turner (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Elinor Hadley Stillman (on behalf of the Federal Respondent)

Leslie Scherr (on behalf of Respondent Terry M. Cross, Jr)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Potomac Electric Power Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation

None

Connecticut Board Of Pardons v. Dumschat

Tue, 24 Feb 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1997

Petitioner

Connecticut Board Of Pardons

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dumschat

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 458 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, February 24, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, June 17, 1981

Advocates

Stephen J. O'Neill (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Stephen Wizner (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Connecticut Board Of Pardons, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Chandler v. Florida

Wed, 12 Nov 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1260

Appellee

Florida

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Chandler

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 560 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, November 12, 1980

Decided

Monday, January 26, 1981

Advocates

Jim Smith (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Joel Hirschhorn (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Calvin L. Fox (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Two Miami Beach police officers were charged with burglarizing a local restaurant. Their trial gained much media attention. Local television stations televised a small portion of the trial, thanks to a recent Florida Supreme Court decision which permitted (with certain restrictions) electronic media to record judicial proceedings. Officers Chandler and Granger objected to the coverage and were found guilty as charged.

Question

Does allowing radio, television, and still photographic coverage of a criminal trial for public broadcast violate the accused's right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Florida, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

The Court found no constitutional violation in this case. Chief Justice Burger first denied Chandler's and Granger's claim that the Court's holding in Estes v. Texas (1964) regarded television cameras in the courtroom as offensive to due process. State experimentation with "evolving technology" in the courtroom, as long as it does not infringe on "fundamental guarantees" of the accused, is consistent with the Constitution. Furthermore, Florida's policy was implemented with strict guidelines intended to protect the right of a defendant to a fair trial. For example, the state required its courts to protect certain witnesses from the "glare of publicity" and to hear and consider arguments from a defendant who feels that electronic coverage may bias the jury.

Scindia Steam Navigation Co., v. De Los Santos

Mon, 01 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-512

Petitioner

Scindia Steam Navigation Co.,

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

De Los Santos

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 156 (1981)

Argued

Monday, December 1, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, April 21, 1981

Advocates

Graydon S. Staring (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James A Grutz (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for De Los Santos, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation

None

University Of Texas v. Camenisch

Tue, 31 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-317

Petitioner

University Of Texas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Camenisch

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 390 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, March 31, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, April 29, 1981

Advocates

Lonny F. Zwiener (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Peter Buscemi (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Stephen J. Pollak (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for University Of Texas, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Kissinger v. Halperin

Mon, 08 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-880

Petitioner

Kissinger

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Halperin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 713 (1981)

Argued

Monday, December 8, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1981

Advocates

Wade H. McCree (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Mark H. Lynch (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Halperin, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Webb v. Webb

Mon, 23 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-6853

Petitioner

Webb

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Webb

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 493 (1981)

Argued

Monday, March 23, 1981

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1981

Advocates

Mary R. Carden (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Manley F. Brown (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Webb, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Western & Southern L. I. Co. v. Bd. Of Equalization

Mon, 12 Jan 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1423

Appellee

Bd. Of Equalization

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Western & Southern L. I. Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 648 (1981)

Argued

Monday, January 12, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, May 26, 1981

Advocates

Alan R. Vogeler (on behalf of the Appellant)

Timothy G. Laddish (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Bd. Of Equalization, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Walter Fleisher Co., Inc. v. County Of Los Angeles

Tue, 04 Nov 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-700

Petitioner

Walter Fleisher Co., Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

County Of Los Angeles

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 608 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, November 4, 1980

Decided

Monday, January 26, 1981

Advocates

Gerald T. Manpearl (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Philip H. Hickok (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for County Of Los Angeles, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Staats, v. Bristol Laboratories

Tue, 24 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-264

Petitioner

Staats,

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bristol Laboratories

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 400 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, March 24, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, April 29, 1981

Advocates

Mark I. Levy (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Gilbert H. Weil (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Bristol Laboratories, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

H. L. v. Matheson

Mon, 06 Oct 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-5903

Appellee

Matheson

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

H. L.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 398 (1981)

Argued

Monday, October 6, 1980

Decided

Monday, March 23, 1981

Advocates

Paul M. Tinker (on behalf of the Appellees)

David S. Dolowitz (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Matheson, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Memphis v. Greene

Wed, 03 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1176

Petitioner

Memphis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Greene

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 100 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, December 3, 1980

Decided

Monday, April 20, 1981

Advocates

Alvin O. Chambliss, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondents)

Clifford D. Pierce, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Memphis, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 13: Thirteenth Amendment

None

Upjohn Co. v. United States

Wed, 05 Nov 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-886

Petitioner

Upjohn Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 383 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, November 5, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 1981

Advocates

Daniel M. Gribbon (on behalf of Petitioners)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Upjohn Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Chicago & N. W. Tr. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile

Tue, 09 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1336

Petitioner

Chicago & N. W. Tr. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kalo Brick & Tile

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 311 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, December 9, 1980

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1981

Advocates

M. Gene Blackburn (on behalf of the Respondent)

Henri F. Rush, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner as amicus curiae)

Bruce E. Johnson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Chicago & N. W. Tr. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

New York State Liquor Authority v. Bellanca

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 14:44:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-813

Petitioner

New York State Liquor Authority

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bellanca

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 714 (1981)

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1981

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for New York State Liquor Authority, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 21: Twenty-First Amendment

None

Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County

Tue, 04 Nov 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Railroad tracks Sonoma County, CA

United States

38° 34' 40.6416" N, 122° 59' 19.7952" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1344

Petitioner

Michael M.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Superior Court of Sonoma County

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 464 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, November 4, 1980

Decided

Monday, March 23, 1981

Advocates

Sandy R. Kriegler (on behalf of the Respondents)

Gregory F. Jilka (on behalf of the Petitioner;)

Facts of the Case

Michael M., a 17 and 1/2 year-old male, was found guilty of violating California's "statutory rape" law. The law defined unlawful sexual intercourse as "an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the wife of the perpetrator, where the female is under the age of 18 years." The statute thus made men alone criminally liable for such conduct. Michael M. challenged the constitutionality of the law.

Question

Did California's statutory rape law unconstitutionally discriminate on the basis of gender?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Superior Court of Sonoma County, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

No. In a plurality decision, the Court held that the law did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, noting that "young men and young women are not similarly situated with respect to the problems and the risks of sexual intercourse." The Court found that the state had a strong interest in preventing "illegitimate pregnancy." The Court noted that "[i]t is hardly unreasonable for a legislature acting to protect minor females to exclude them from punishment. Moreover, the risk of pregnancy itself constitutes a substantial deterrence to young females. No similar natural sanctions deter males."

Watt v. Alaska

Tue, 13 Jan 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1890

Petitioner

Watt

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alaska

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 79-1904

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 259 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, April 21, 1981

Advocates

Charles K. Cranston (on behalf of the Petitioner, Kenai Peninsula Borough)

Louis F. Claiborne (on behalf of the Petitioners, Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary of the Interior, et al)

G. Thomas Koester (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Alaska, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 30 U.S.C. 191

None

Hughes v. Rowe

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 14:44:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-6000

Petitioner

Hughes

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rowe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 5 (1980)

Decided

Monday, November 10, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Hughes, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

Albernaz v. United States

Mon, 19 Jan 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1709

Petitioner

Albernaz et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 333 (1981)

Argued

Monday, January 19, 1981

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1981

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Schad v. Mount Ephraim

Wed, 25 Feb 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1640

Appellee

Mount Ephraim

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Schad

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 61 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, February 25, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1981

Advocates

Arnold N. Fishman (on behalf of the Appellee)

Robert E. Levy (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Schad, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

H. A. Artists & Associates v. Actors' Equity Assn.

Mon, 23 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-348

Petitioner

H. A. Artists & Associates

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Actors' Equity Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 704 (1981)

Argued

Monday, March 23, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, May 26, 1981

Advocates

Howard Breindel (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Laurence E. Gold (on behalf of the AFL-CIO as amicus curiae)

Jerome B. Lurie (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for H. A. Artists & Associates, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Norris-LaGuardia

None

Rhodes v. Chapman

Mon, 02 Mar 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-332

Petitioner

Rhodes

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chapman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 337 (1981)

Argued

Monday, March 2, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1981

Advocates

Jean P. Kamp (on behalf of the Respondents)

Allen P. Adler (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Rhodes, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

None

California Medical Assn. v. Fec

Mon, 19 Jan 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1952

Appellee

Fec

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

California Medical Assn.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 182 (1981)

Argued

Monday, January 19, 1981

Decided

Friday, June 26, 1981

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Fec, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Election Campaign

None

Stone v. Graham

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 14:44:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-321

Petitioner

Stone

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Graham

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Decided

Monday, November 17, 1980

Facts of the Case

Sydell Stone and a number of other parents challenged a Kentucky state law that required the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments in each public school classroom. They filed a claim against James Graham, the superintendent of public schools in Kentucky.

Question

Did the Kentucky statute violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Stone, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

In a 5-to-4 per curiam decision, the Court ruled that the Kentucky law violated the first part of the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, and thus violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The Court found that the requirement that the Ten Commandments be posted "had no secular legislative purpose" and was "plainly religious in nature." The Court noted that the Commandments did not confine themselves to arguably secular matters (such as murder, stealing, etc.), but rather concerned matters such as the worship of God and the observance of the Sabbath Day.

FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild

Mon, 03 Nov 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-824

Petitioner

Federal Communications Commission

Respondent

WNCN Listeners Guild

Consolidation

Insilco Broadcasting Corp. et al. v. WNCN Listeners Guild et al., No. 79-825

American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., et al. v. WNCN Listeners Guild et al., No. 79-826

National Association of Broadcasters et al. v. WNCN Listeners Guild et al., No. 79-827

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 582 (1981)

Argued

Monday, November 3, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1981

Advocates

Wilhelmina Reuben Cooke (on behalf of the Respondents, Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, et al)

David J. Saylor (on behalf of the Petitioners, the FCC, et al)

Timothy B. Dyk (on behalf of the Petitioners, American Broadcasting Companies, et al., and National Association of Broadcasters, et al)

Kristin Booth Glen (on behalf of the Respondents, WNCN Listeners Guild, Inc., et al)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for FCC, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Communication Act of 1934

None

Estelle v. Smith

Wed, 08 Oct 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1127

Petitioner

Estelle

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Smith

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 454 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, October 8, 1980

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1981

Advocates

Joel Berger (on behalf of the Respondent)

Anita Ashton (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Smith, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Montana v. United States

Wed, 03 Dec 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1128

Petitioner

Montana

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 544 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, December 3, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1981

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (on behalf of the United States as Respondent)

Urban L. Roth (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Thomas J. Lynaugh (on behalf of the Crow Tribe of Indians as Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Montana, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 11 Stat. 749

None

Wood v. Georgia

Tue, 04 Nov 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-6027

Petitioner

Wood

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Georgia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 261 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, November 4, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, March 4, 1981

Advocates

Glenn Zell (on behalf of the Petitioners;)

John W. Dunsmore, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Wood, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. Turkette

Mon, 27 Apr 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-808

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Turkette

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 576 (1981)

Argued

Monday, April 27, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, June 17, 1981

Advocates

Mark I. Levy (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John E. Wall, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

None

Kassell v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of DL

Tue, 04 Nov 1980 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1320

Appellee

Consolidated Freightways Corp. of DL

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Kassell

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 662 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, November 4, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1981

Advocates

Mark E. Schantz (on behalf of the Appellants)

John H. Lederer (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

An Iowa law restricted the length of vehicles traveling on its highways. Iowa justified the law as a reasonable use of its police power to assure safety on the state's roads.

Question

Did the law pose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Consolidated Freightways Corp. of DL, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

The Court held that the law violated the Commerce Clause for two reasons. First, Iowa could not prove that the vehicles it targeted posed potential danger to highway travelers. The safety interest was "illusory." Second, the law was "out of step with the laws of all other Midwestern and Western States" which did not have similar regulations. This placed significant burdens on the flow of interstate commerce