Cases - 1981 term

Mills v. Habluetzel

Tue, 12 Jan 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-6298

Appellee

Habluetzel

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mills

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 91 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, January 12, 1982

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1982

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

In Re R. M. J.

Mon, 09 Nov 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1431

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

In Re R. M. J.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 191 (1982)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1981

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1982

Advocates

Charles B. Blackmar (on behalf of the Appellant)

John W. Inglish (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for In Re R. M. J., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

North Haven Board Of Education v. Bell

Wed, 09 Dec 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-986

Petitioner

North Haven Board Of Education

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 512 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, December 9, 1981

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1982

Advocates

Paul E. Knag (on behalf of Petitioner Trumbull Board of Education)

Susan K. Krell (on behalf of Petitioner New Haven Board of Education)

Beverly J. Hodgson (on behalf of Respondent Linda Potz)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the Federal Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Bell, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Education Amendments of 1972

None

Santosky v. Kramer

Tue, 10 Nov 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-5889

Petitioner

Santosky

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kramer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 745 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1982

Advocates

Stephen Scavuzzo (on behalf of the Respondents)

Martin Guggenheim (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Santosky, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Harlow v. Fitzgerald

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-945

Petitioner

Harlow

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fitzgerald

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 800 (1982)

Argued

Monday, November 30, 1981

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 1982

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan Catv Corp.

Tue, 30 Mar 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-244

Appellee

Teleprompter Manhattan Catv Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Loretto

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 419 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, March 30, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, June 30, 1982

Advocates

Erwin N. Griswold (on behalf of Appellee)

Michael S. Gruen (on behalf of Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Loretto, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

Edgar v. Mite Corporation

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1188

Appellee

Mite Corporation

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Edgar

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 624 (1982)

Argued

Monday, November 30, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, June 23, 1982

Advocates

Eugene D. Berman (Argued the cause for the State of New York as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Stephen M. Shapiro (Argued the cause for the Securities and Exchange Commission as amicus curiae urging affirmance)

Richard W. Hulbert (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Russell C. Grimes, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Facts of the Case

The MITE Corp, organized under Delaware laws with its principal office in Connecticut, initiated a tender offer for all outstanding shares of Chicago Rivet & Machine Co., an Illinois corporation. The Illinois Business Take-Over Act requires a tender offeror to notify the Secretary of State and the target company of its intent to make a tender offer and the terms of the offer 20 days before the offer becomes effective. During that time, the target company, but not the offeror, is free to disseminate information about the offer to the target company's shareholders. In addition, the Secretary of State could call a hearing, and the offer could not proceed until the hearing was completed. Finally, the Secretary of State could deny registration of a takeover offer he or she found inequitable. MITE Corp. sought and won a declaratory judgment holding that the Illinois Act was pre-empted by the Williams Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78m(d)-(e) and 78n(d)-(f), and that it violated the Commerce Clause.

Question

Is the Illinois Business Take-Over Act unconstitutional under the Supremacy and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution?

Conclusion

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

Yes, with regard to the Commerce Clause. The Illinois Act imposes burdens on interstate commerce that are excessive in light of the local interests the Act purports to further. Among the ways a corporation can be covered by the Act is if 10% of the class of equity securities subject to the offer is owned by shareholders located in Illinois. Thus Illinois would have the power to determine whether a tender offer may proceed even if made for a corporation incorporated and having a principal place of business outside of Illinois, with up to 90% of the shareholders residing outside of Illinois. Illinois's asserted interest in protecting resident security holders is insufficient to outweigh the burdens Illinois would impose on interstate commerce. In addition, Illinois's asserted interest in regulating the internal affairs of a corporation incorporated under its laws not only fails to justify the Act's coverage of foreign corporations, but transfers of stock to a third party do not implicate the internal affairs of a corporation.

Union Labor Life Ins. Co. v. Pireno

Tue, 27 Apr 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-389

Petitioner

Union Labor Life Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pireno

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 81-390

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 119 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, April 27, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1982

Advocates

T. Richard Kennedy (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Susan M. Jenkins (on behalf of the Respondent)

B. Barry Grossman (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Pireno, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 1011

None

United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal

Tue, 20 Apr 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-450

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Valenzuela-Bernal

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 858 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, April 20, 1982

Decided

Friday, July 2, 1982

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

None

Larson v. Valente

Wed, 09 Dec 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1666

Appellee

Valente

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Larson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 228 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, December 9, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, April 21, 1982

Advocates

Larry Salustro (on behalf of the Appellants)

Barry A. Fisher (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Valente, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

None

Asarco Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n

Mon, 19 Apr 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2015

Appellee

Idaho State Tax Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Asarco Inc.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 307 (1982)

Argued

Monday, April 19, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, June 29, 1982

Advocates

George W. Beatty (on behalf of the Appellant)

Theodore V. Spangler, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Asarco Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Mills v. Rogers

Wed, 13 Jan 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1417

Petitioner

Mills

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rogers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 291 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, January 13, 1982

Decided

Friday, June 18, 1982

Advocates

Richard Wayne Cole (on behalf of the Respondents)

Stephen Schultz (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Foremost Insurance Co. v. Richardson

Tue, 12 Jan 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2134

Petitioner

Foremost Insurance Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Richardson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 668 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, January 12, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, June 23, 1982

Advocates

Dorsey C. Martin, III (on behalf of Respondents)

Arthur H. Andrews (On behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Richardson, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1333

None

Velde v. National Black Police Assn.

Wed, 09 Dec 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1074

Petitioner

Velde

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Black Police Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 591 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, December 9, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, June 30, 1982

Advocates

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Petitioners)

E. Richard Larson (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Velde, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Transportation Union v. Long Island R. Co.

Wed, 20 Jan 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1925

Petitioner

Transportation Union

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Long Island R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 678 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, January 20, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1982

Advocates

Lewis B. Kaden (on behalf of the Respondent)

Joshua I. Schwartz (as amicus curiae)

Edward D. Friedman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Transportation Union, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 10: Tenth Amendment

None

General Building Contractors Assn. v. Pa.

Wed, 03 Mar 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-280

Petitioner

General Building Contractors Assn.

Respondent

Pa.

Consolidation

No. 81-330

No. 81-331

No. 81-332

No. 81-333

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 375 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, March 3, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, June 29, 1982

Advocates

John G. Kester (on behalf of Petitioners in 81-280 et al)

Harold I. Goodman (on behalf of Respondents)

John J. Mc Aleese, Jr. (on behalf of Petitioners in 81-330 et al)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for General Building Contractors Assn., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1981)

None

Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn.

Wed, 31 Mar 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-460

Petitioner

Middlesex Ethics Comm.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Garden State Bar Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 423 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, March 31, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1982

Advocates

Mary Ann Burgess (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Morton Stavis (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Middlesex Ethics Comm., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Insurance Corp. v. Compagnie Des Bauxites

Tue, 23 Mar 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-440

Petitioner

Insurance Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Compagnie Des Bauxites

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 694 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, March 23, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1982

Advocates

Cloyd R. Mellott (on behalf of the Respondents)

Edmund K. Trent (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Jackson Transit Authority v. Transit Union

Wed, 21 Apr 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-411

Petitioner

Jackson Transit Authority

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Transit Union

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 15 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, April 21, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1982

Advocates

Joseph S. Kaufman (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Linda R. Hirshman (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Jackson Transit Authority, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 49 U.S.C. 1609

None

Rendell-Baker v. Kohn

Mon, 19 Apr 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2102

Petitioner

Rendell-Baker

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kohn

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 830 (1982)

Argued

Monday, April 19, 1982

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1982

Advocates

Zachary R. Karol (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Matthew H. Feinberg (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Kohn, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Zant v. Stephens

Wed, 24 Feb 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-89

Petitioner

Zant

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stephens

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 410 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, February 24, 1982

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1982

Advocates

John Charles Boger (on behalf of the Respondent)

Daryl A. Robinson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Steelworkers v. Sadlowski

Wed, 31 Mar 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-395

Petitioner

Steelworkers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sadlowski

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 102 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, March 31, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1982

Advocates

Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondents)

Michael H. Gottesman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Steelworkers, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure

None

Mcelroy v. United States

Tue, 12 Jan 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-6680

Petitioner

Mcelroy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 642 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, January 12, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, March 23, 1982

Advocates

Carter G. Phillips (on behalf of the Respondent)

Thomas S. White (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 2314

None

Island Trees School District Board of Education v. Pico

Tue, 02 Mar 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Island Trees School District

74 Farmedge Rd Levittown NY 11756

Levittown, NY 11756

United States

40° 44' 6.8928" N, 73° 30' 6.5232" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2043

Petitioner

Island Trees School District Board of Education

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pico

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 853 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, March 2, 1982

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1982

Advocates

Bernard Hellring (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

George W. Lipp, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Alan H. Levine (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

The Island Trees Union Free School District's Board of Education (the "Board"), acting contrary to the recommendations of a committee of parents and school staff, ordered that certain books be removed from its district's junior high and high school libraries. In support of its actions, the Board said such books were: "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy." Acting through his friend Francis Pico, and on behalf of several other students, Steven Pico brought suit in federal district court challenging the Board's decision to remove the books. The Board won; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. The Board petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.

Question

Did the Board of Education's decision to ban certain books from its junior high and high school libraries, based on their content, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Pico, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. Although school boards have a vested interest in promoting respect for social, moral, and political community values, their discretionary power is secondary to the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment. The Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, held that as centers for voluntary inquiry and the dissemination of information and ideas, school libraries enjoy a special affinity with the rights of free speech and press. Therefore, the Board could not restrict the availability of books in its libraries simply because its members disagreed with their idea content.

Cory v. White

Mon, 18 Jan 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1556

Petitioner

Cory

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

White

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 85 (1982)

Argued

Monday, January 18, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1982

Advocates

Rick Harrison (on behalf of Respondents White and Bullock)

Jerome B. Falk, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

O. Clayton Lilienstern (on behalf of the Respondents Lummis et al)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Cory, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment

None

Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo

Tue, 23 Feb 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1990

Petitioner

Weinberger

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Romero-Barcelo

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 305 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, February 23, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, April 27, 1982

Advocates

Elinor Hadley Stillman (on behalf of Petitioners)

John A. Hodges (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Weinberger, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water), plus amendments

None

Connecticut v. Teal

Mon, 29 Mar 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2147

Petitioner

Connecticut

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Teal

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 440 (1982)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1982

Advocates

Thomas W. Bucci (on behalf of the Respondents)

Bernard F. McGovern, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Patsy v. Florida Board Of Regents

Tue, 02 Mar 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1874

Petitioner

Patsy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida Board Of Regents

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 496 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, March 2, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1982

Advocates

Charles S. Sims (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Mitchell D. Franks (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Patsy, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

O'dell v. Espinoza

Mon, 26 Apr 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-534

Petitioner

O'dell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Espinoza

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 430 (1982)

Argued

Monday, April 26, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, May 4, 1982

Advocates

Scott H. Robinson (on behalf of the Respondents)

Theodore S. Halaby (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Espinoza, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

None

Nixon v. Fitzgerald

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

Location

Residence of Fitzgerald Washington, DC

United States

38° 53' 42.4032" N, 77° 2' 10.9176" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1738

Petitioner

Nixon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fitzgerald

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 731 (1982)

Argued

Monday, November 30, 1981

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 1982

Advocates

Herbert J. Miller, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Elliot L. Richardson (on behalf of the Petitioners Harlow and Butterfield)

John E. Nolan, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

In 1968, Fitzgerald, then a civilian analyst with the United States Air Force, testified before a congressional committee about inefficiencies and cost overruns in the production of the C-5A transport plane. Roughly one year later he was fired, an action for which President Nixon took responsibility. Fitzgerald then sued Nixon for damages after the Civil Service Commission concluded that his dismissal was unjust.

Question

Was the President immune from prosecution in a civil suit?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Nixon, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

Yes. The Court held that the President "is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts." This sweeping immunity, argued Justice Powell, was a function of the "President's unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of separation of powers and supported by our history."

F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Taxation & Revenue Dept.

Mon, 19 Apr 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1745

Appellee

Taxation & Revenue Dept.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

F. W. Woolworth Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 354 (1982)

Argued

Monday, April 19, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, June 29, 1982

Advocates

Sarah E. Bennett (on behalf of the Appellee)

William L. Goldman (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for F. W. Woolworth Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Ralston v. Robinson

Mon, 05 Oct 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2049

Petitioner

Ralston

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Robinson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 201 (1981)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, December 2, 1981

Advocates

Jerold S. Solovy (on behalf of the Respondent)

David A. Strauss (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Ralston, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 5005

None

Williams v. United States

Tue, 20 Apr 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2116

Petitioner

Williams

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 279 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, April 20, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, June 29, 1982

Advocates

Nickolas P. Chilivis (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard G. Wilkins (on behalf of the United States)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Williams, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1014

None

Herweg v. Ray

Wed, 13 Jan 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-60

Petitioner

Herweg

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ray

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 265 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, January 13, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1982

Advocates

Neal S. Dudovitz (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Brent R. Appel (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Herweg, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Medicaid--provisions of the Social Security Act

None

Engle v. Isaac

Tue, 08 Dec 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1430

Petitioner

Engle

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Isaac

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 107 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, December 8, 1981

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1982

Advocates

Simon B. Karas (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James R. Kingsley (on behalf of the Respondent Isaac)

Richard L. Aynes (on behalf of Respondents Bell and Hughes)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Engle, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-5950

Appellee

Zimmerman Brush Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Logan

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 422 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, October 14, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1982

Advocates

Jay A. Canel (on behalf of the Appellees)

Gary H. Palm (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

American Medical Assn. v. Ftc

Mon, 11 Jan 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1690

Petitioner

American Medical Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ftc

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 676 (1982)

Argued

Monday, January 11, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, March 23, 1982

Advocates

Newton N. Minow (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Howard E. Shapiro (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Department Of State v. Washington Post Co.

Wed, 31 Mar 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-535

Petitioner

Department Of State

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Washington Post Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 595 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, March 31, 1982

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1982

Advocates

David E. Kendall (on behalf of the Respondent)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Department Of State, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Fbi v. Abramson

Mon, 11 Jan 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1735

Petitioner

Fbi

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Abramson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 615 (1982)

Argued

Monday, January 11, 1982

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1982

Advocates

Sharon T. Nelson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Fbi, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Blue Shield Of Virginia v. Mccready

Wed, 24 Mar 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-225

Petitioner

Blue Shield Of Virginia

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mccready

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 465 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, March 24, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1982

Advocates

Griffin B. Bell (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Warwick R. Furr, II (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mccready, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Rice v. Norman Williams Co.

Wed, 21 Apr 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1012

Petitioner

Rice

Respondent

Norman Williams Co.

Consolidation

No. 80-1030

No. 80-1052

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 654 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, April 21, 1982

Decided

Thursday, July 1, 1982

Advocates

John R. McDonough (on behalf of Petitioners in 80-1030 and 80-1052)

George J. Roth (on behalf of the Petitioner in 80-1012)

George G. Weickhardt (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ramah Navajo School Bd. v. Bureau Of Revenue

Wed, 28 Apr 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2162

Appellee

Bureau Of Revenue

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Ramah Navajo School Bd.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 832 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, April 28, 1982

Decided

Friday, July 2, 1982

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (as amicus curiae)

Jan Unna (on behalf of Appellees)

Michael P. Gross (on behalf of Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Ramah Navajo School Bd., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 25 U.S.C. 450

None

Brown v. Hartlage

Wed, 20 Jan 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1285

Petitioner

Brown

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hartlage

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 45 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, January 20, 1982

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1982

Advocates

L. Stanley Chauvin, Jr. (as amicus curiae)

Fred M. Goldberg (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Brown, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Ferc v. Mississippi

Tue, 19 Jan 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1749

Appellee

Mississippi

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Ferc

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 742 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, January 19, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1982

Advocates

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the Appellants)

Alex A. Alston, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Ferc, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 10: Tenth Amendment

None

United States v. Erika, Inc.

Mon, 01 Mar 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1594

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Erika, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 201 (1982)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, April 20, 1982

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Stephen H. Oleskey (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: Medicare--provisions of the Social Security Act

None

Texaco, Inc. v. Short

Tue, 06 Oct 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-965

Appellee

Short

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Texaco, Inc.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 80-1018

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 516 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, October 6, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, January 12, 1982

Advocates

John L. Carroll (on behalf of Appellants)

Verner P. Partenheimer, Jr. (on behalf of Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Short, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

Schweiker v. Mcclure

Mon, 01 Mar 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-212

Appellee

Mcclure

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Schweiker

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 188 (1982)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, April 20, 1982

Advocates

Harvey Sohnen (on behalf of the Appellee)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Blum v. Bacon

Wed, 28 Apr 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-770

Appellee

Bacon

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Blum

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 132 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, April 28, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1982

Advocates

Martin A. Schwartz (on behalf of Appellees)

Robert S. Hammer (on behalf of Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bacon, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Donovan v. Richland County Assn.

Fri, 18 May 2012 05:34:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-255

Appellee

Richland County Assn.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Donovan

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 389 (1982)

Decided

Monday, January 11, 1982

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Donovan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1252

None

Miss. Univ. for Women v. Hogan

Mon, 22 Mar 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Mississippi University for Women

1100 College St Columbus MS 39701

Columbus, MS 39701

United States

33° 29' 41.6724" N, 88° 25' 14.3436" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-406

Petitioner

Miss. Univ. for Women

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hogan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 718 (1982)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1982

Decided

Thursday, July 1, 1982

Advocates

Wilbur O. Colom (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Hunter M. Gholson (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Joe Hogan, a registered nurse and qualified applicant, was denied admission to the Mississippi University for Women School of Nursing's baccalaureate program on the basis of sex. Created by a state statute in 1884, MUW was the oldest state-supported all-female college in the United States.

Question

Did the state statute which prevented men from enrolling in MUW violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

Yes. The Court held that the state did not provide an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for the gender-based distinction. The state's primary argument, that the policy constituted educational affirmative action for women, was "unpersuasive" to the Court since women traditionally have not lacked opportunities to enter nursing. If anything, argued Justice O'Connor, the statute "tends to perpetuate the stereotyped view of nursing as an exclusively women's job."