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.

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 14:27:35 +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."

Ridgway v. Ridgway

Wed, 07 Oct 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1070

Petitioner

Ridgway

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ridgway

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 46 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, October 7, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, November 10, 1981

Advocates

Stephen P. Beale (on behalf of Petitioners)

Joshua I. Schwartz (amicus curiae)

Curtis Webber (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Ridgway, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 765

None

Sporhase v. Nebraska Ex Rel. Douglas

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-613

Appellee

Nebraska Ex Rel. Douglas

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Sporhase

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 941 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, March 30, 1982

Decided

Friday, July 2, 1982

Advocates

Richard A. Dudden (on behalf of the Appellants)

George Roderic Anderson (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lane v. Williams

Tue, 01 Dec 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1240

Petitioner

Lane

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Williams

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 624 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, December 1, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, March 23, 1982

Advocates

Martha A. Mills (on behalf of the Respondents)

Michael B. Weinstein (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.

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

Location

A truck stop Pittsylvania County, VA

United States

36° 44' 38.4684" N, 79° 28' 13.4004" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1730

Petitioner

Giles M. Lugar

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Edmondson Oil Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 922 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, December 8, 1981

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1982

Advocates

Robert L. Morrison (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James W. Haskins (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

Giles Lugar leased a truckstop from Edmondson Oil Co. and fell behind on his rent payments. Edmondson issued a suit against him in a Virginia state court for failing to repay his debt. Before the court reached a decision, it issued a "writ of attachment" against Lugar. This disabled him from selling any property he owned while the case was open, since Edmondson wanted the property as collateral in case he could not repay his debt. A state trial judge cancelled the "writ of attachment" one month later after finding no statutory justification for its issuance. Lugar claimed that Edmondson worked with the government to deprive him of his property without the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. He said this caused him financial loss and sought to recover damages from Edmondson in a District Court under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. This code provides rewards to those who have had their rights violated because of "state action." The District Court rejected Lugar's claim because it deemed that no "state action" had occurred. On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected using solely "state action" to validate Section 1983 suits. It claimed that certain instances where private parties acted "under the color of state law" also validated Section 1983 suits. However the Fourth Circuit found that none of these actions occurred in Lugar's case and rejected his suit.

Question

Do "state actions" that occur indirectly "under the color of state law" and violate an individual's Fourtheenth Amendment rights validate damage recovery suits filed under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Lugar, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

Yes. Justice Byron R. White delivered the opinion for a 5-4 court. The Fourteenth Amendment prevents "state actions" from intruding unlawfully upon the rights of citizens. Section 1983 offers relief to those who have their rights unlawfully abridged by actions occurring "under the color of state law." The Court decided that a state was liable for damages caused by unconstitutional conduct when two conditions were met. First, "the deprivation [of a constitutional right] must be caused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the State." Second, "the party charged with the deprivation must be a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor." This includes both state officials and those whom are significantly aided by them. The Court previously found that the states guaranteed the due process of law when placing holds on disputed pieces of property, and therefore they are responsible for violations of this process. Accordingly, when Edmondson used state mechanisms to unconstitutionally deprive Lugar of his property, the state was responsible for compensating him for damages.

California v. Grace Brethren Church

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-31

Petitioner

Grace Brethren Church

Respondent

California

Consolidation

No. 81-228

No. 81-455

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 393 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, March 30, 1982

Decided

Friday, June 18, 1982

Advocates

William B. Ball (on behalf of Grace Brethren Church)

Jeffrey M. Vesely (on behalf of the State of California)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for California, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1341

None

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Curran

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-203

Petitioner

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith

Respondent

Curran

Consolidation

No. 80-757

No. 80-895

No. 80-936

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 353 (1982)

Argued

Monday, November 2, 1981

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1982

Advocates

Leonard Toboroff (on behalf of Respondents)

Barry Sullivan (amicus curiae)

Richard P. Saslow (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Gerard K. Sandweg, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Robert A. Hudson (on behalf of the Respondents)

William E. Hegarty (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Curran, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 7 U.S.C. 6

None

Princeton University v. Schmid

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1576

Appellee

Schmid

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Princeton University

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 100 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, January 13, 1982

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-202

Petitioner

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Claiborne Hardware Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 886 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, March 3, 1982

Decided

Friday, July 2, 1982

Advocates

Lloyd N. Cutler (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Grover Rees, III (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for NAACP, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

California Ex Rel. State Lands Comm'n v. U.S.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

89 ORIG

Plaintiff

California Ex Rel. State Lands Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

U.S.

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 273 (1982)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1982

Decided

Friday, June 18, 1982

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (on behalf of the Defendant)

Bruce S. Flushman (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for U.S., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Submerged Lands Acts

None

Blum v. Yaretsky

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1952

Petitioner

Blum

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yaretsky

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 991 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, March 24, 1982

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1982

Advocates

John E. Kirklin (on behalf of the Respondents)

Judith A. Gordon (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman

Tue, 01 Dec 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-988

Petitioner

Havens Realty Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Coleman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 363 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, December 1, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1982

Advocates

Vanessa Ruiz (on behalf of the Respondents)

Everette G. Allen, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Havens Realty Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Housing

None

United States v. Goodwin

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2195

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Goodwin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 368 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, April 21, 1982

Decided

Friday, June 18, 1982

Advocates

Paul W. Spence (on behalf of the Respondent)

Andrew L. Frey (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: Due Process

None

United States v. Macdonald

Mon, 07 Dec 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1582

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Macdonald

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 1 (1982)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, March 31, 1982

Advocates

Ralph S. Spritzer (on behalf of the Respondent)

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Oregon v. Kennedy

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1991

Petitioner

Oregon

Respondent

Kennedy

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 667 (1982)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1982

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1982

Advocates

David B. Frohnmayer (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Donald C. Walker (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Washington v. Chrisman

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1349

Petitioner

Washington

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chrisman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 1 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, November 3, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, January 13, 1982

Advocates

Ronald R. Carpenter (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Robert F. Patrick (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

In 1978, a Washington police officer stopped a student at the Washington State University after observing the student was carrying a half-gallon bottle of gin. The officer asked for identification. The student, accompanied by the officer, then went into his dormitory to retrieve proof of age. After the student had entered his room, the officer noticed that the student's roommate, Chrisman, had marijuana seeds and a pipe on his desk. Chrisman was subsequently charged with the possession of marijuana and LSD.

Question

Did the officer's seizure of the drugs violate Chrisman's "reasonable expectation of privacy" guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the "plain view" exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permitted law enforcement officers to seize clearly incriminating evidence discovered "in a place where the officer has a right to be." The Court held that the officer had a right to remain at the initial suspect's elbow at all times, and did not waive his right to custodial control because he hesitated briefly in the doorway of the dormitory room before entering. In short, the officer had obtained lawful access to an individual's area of privacy and was free to seize incriminating evidence.

Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-614

Petitioner

Griffin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oceanic Contractors, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 564 (1982)

Argued

Monday, April 26, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, June 30, 1982

Advocates

Robert A. Chaffin (on behalf of Petitioner)

Theodore Goller (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Griffin, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Jones, or Death on the High Seas

None

U.S. Industries/Federal Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-513

Petitioner

U.S. Industries/Federal Sheet Metal, Inc., et al

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, et al

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Argued

Tuesday, October 6, 1981

Advocates

Richard W. Galiher, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

James F. Green (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Weinberger v. Catholic Action Of Hawaii

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1377

Petitioner

Weinberger

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Catholic Action Of Hawaii

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 139 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, December 1, 1981

Advocates

Nancy Stearns (on behalf of Respondents)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

U.S. Ind./Fed. Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Director, Owcp

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-518

Petitioner

U.S. Ind./Fed. Sheet Metal, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Director, Owcp

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 608 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, October 6, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, March 23, 1982

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for U.S. Ind./Fed. Sheet Metal, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation

None

Polk County v. Dodson

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-824

Petitioner

Polk County

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dodson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 312 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1981

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1981

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (amicus curiae supporting Respondent)

John D. Hudson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Norman G. Jesse (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court

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

Location

Suffolk County Court

Three Pemberton Square Boston MA 02108

Boston, MA 02108

United States

42° 21' 31.7988" N, 71° 3' 41.4432" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-611

Appellee

Superior Court

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Globe Newspaper Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 596 (1982)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, June 23, 1982

Advocates

James F. McHugh (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Mitchell J. Sikora, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

A Massachusetts law required trial courts to exclude members of the press and public from certain cases involving sexual offenses and testimony of victims less than eighteen years old. In a trial involving a male who was accused of raping three minors, the court, acting in reference to the Massachusetts statute, conducted a closed trial.

Question

Did the Massachusetts law violate the First Amendment's freedom of press guarantee as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Globe Newspaper Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

The Court held that the Massachusetts law violated the First Amendment. Recalling the Court's holding in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980), Justice Brennan reviewed important historical and judicial reasons why access to criminal trials is "properly afforded" First Amendment protection. When the court denies access, argued Brennan, the only justification is to serve a compelling state interest. The Court found no such interest here. First, protecting the psychological well-being of a minor, arguably a compelling interest, conceded Brennan, "does not justify a mandatory closure rule" as circumstances can vary greatly in this type of case. Second, there was no convincing empirical or logical evidence to prove that victims would be more likely to come forward if the press and public were excluded from trials of this nature.

Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2070

Petitioner

Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Avagliano

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 81-24

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 176 (1982)

Argued

Monday, April 26, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, June 15, 1982

Advocates

Abram Chayes (on behalf of Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc)

Lewis M. Steel (on behalf of Avagliano et al)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Avagliano, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-328

Appellant

Popular Democratic Party

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Rodriguez

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 1 (1982)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1982

Advocates

Philip A. Lacovara (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Abe Fortas (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

In 1981, a representative of Puerto Rico's Popular Democratic Party ("Party") died in office. Searching for a replacement, the Governor of Puerto Rico held a "by-election" open to candidates of all parties. The Party challenged the Governor, alleging that under Puerto Rico statutes only candidates and electors affiliated with the Party could participate in the by-election. On appeal from a Superior Court judgment favoring the Party, Puerto Rico's Supreme Court modified the judgment holding that a by-election was only required if the party of the legislator vacating the seat fails to name a replacement within 60 days. Before Puerto Rico's Supreme Court could deliver its decision, the Party held an election open only to its members and, then, pursuant to the Supreme Court's mandate, swore in a new representative. Rodriguez appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question

Do Puerto Rico's statutes, authorizing a political party to appoint one of its own members as an interim replacement to a vacated seat, infringe on the constitutionally protected rights of association or equal protection?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Popular Democratic Party, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

No. The Court, in a unanimous opinion, began by noting that the Constitution does not compel a fixed method of selecting state or local representatives. As such, the Puerto Rican Commonwealth legislature could vest exclusive interim appointment power in parties affiliated with the previous incumbent. This scheme is particularly reasonable in light of Puerto Rico's interest in maintaining continuity of party representation until the next general election and insuring its legislature's delicate balance of minority representation.

American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1199

Petitioner

American Tobacco Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Patterson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 63 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, January 19, 1982

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1982

Advocates

Henry L. Marsh, III (on behalf of the Respondents Patterson et al)

Ronald Rosenberg (on behalf of the Petitioner Unions)

David A. Strauss (on behalf of Respondent EEOC, pro hac vice)

Henry T. Wickham (on behalf of the Petitioners American Tobacco Co. et al)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Youngberg v. Romeo

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1429

Petitioner

Youngberg

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Romeo

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 307 (1982)

Argued

Monday, January 11, 1982

Decided

Friday, June 18, 1982

Advocates

Edmond A. Tiryak (on behalf of the Respondent)

David H. Allshouse (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1345

Petitioner

Kaiser Steel Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mullins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 72 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, January 13, 1982

Advocates

Barbara E. Etkind (amicus curiae)

A. Douglas Melamed (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Stephen J. Pollak (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Kaiser Steel Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1798

Petitioner

Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc.

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Consolidation

No. 80-1808

No. 81-91

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 645 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, March 3, 1982

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1982

Advocates

Norton J. Come (on behalf of Respondent National Labor Relations Board)

John W. Prager, Jr. (on behalf of Petitioner in 80-1798)

Lewis K. Scott (on behalf of Petitioners in 80-1808 and 81-91)

Laurence E. Gold (on behalf of Respondent unions)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for NLRB, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-848

Petitioner

Piper Aircraft Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reyno

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 80-883

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 235 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, October 14, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, December 8, 1981

Advocates

Daniel C. Cathcart (on behalf of the Respondent)

James M. Fitzsimons (on behalf of Petitioner, Piper Aircraft Company)

Warner W. Gardner (on behalf of the Petitioner, Hartzell Propeller, Inc)

Facts of the Case

(This summary was prepared by Tom Feledy.)

A British company, flying an airplane manufactured by Piper, a Pennsylvania company, equipped with propellers made by Hartzell, an Ohio company, conducted a charter flight in Scotland for five Scottish citizens. When the plane crashed, killing all on board, the next of kin, also Scottish, had a Los Angeles-based lawyer sue Piper and Hartzell for wrongful death. The suit was filed in a California state court, then removed to Federal District Court in California, and finally transferred to Federal District Court in Pennsylvania. There it was dismissed for forum non conveniens under the determination that the case should be tried in Scotland: the crash had occurred, the crash investigation had been conducted there by British authorities, and the pilot's estate, the plane's owners, and the charter company were all located there. However, respondents successfully appealed, claiming that substantive law in Scotland would be unfavorable to their case. Scotland, unlike Pennsylvania, had no strict liability law, which, along with negligence, respondents were relying upon in order to prevail.

Question

Does the possibility of an unfavorable change in law bar dismissal under forum non conveniens?

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Piper Aircraft Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

Yes. In a 7-3 majority opinion authored by Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Court held that the District Court properly weighed private and public interests using the Gulf Oil v. Gilbert test to determine that the trial should be held in Scotland. The possibility of a change in substantive law should ordinarily not be given conclusive or even substantial weight in the forum non conveniens inquiry. Justices Lewis Powell and Sandra Day o"Connor did not participate.

Watt v. Energy Action Educational Foundation

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1464

Petitioner

Watt

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Energy Action Educational Foundation

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 151 (1981)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, December 1, 1981

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (on behalf of the Petitioners)

John Silard (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Vogel Fertilizer Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1251

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Vogel Fertilizer Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 16 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, November 3, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, January 13, 1982

Advocates

Stuart A. Smith (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Ronald C. Jensen (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Vogel Fertilizer Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-737

Appellee

Berkeley

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Citizens Against Rent Control

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 290 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, October 14, 1981

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1981

Advocates

James R. Parrinello (on behalf of the Appellants)

Natalie E. West (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Citizens Against Rent Control, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

None

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-349

Petitioner

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Caterpillar Tractor Co., et al

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

463 U.S. 1220

Argued

Monday, April 19, 1982

Advocates

Stuart A. Smith (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

William P. Sutter (on behalf of the Appellant)

Don S. Harnack (on behalf of the Appellee)

John D. Whitenack (on behalf of Illinois)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Widmar v. Vincent

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-689

Petitioner

Widmar

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Vincent

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 263 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, October 6, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, December 8, 1981

Advocates

James M. Smart, Jr. (on behalf of Respondent)

Ted D. Ayres (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Vincent, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

None

Taylor v. Alabama

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-5152

Petitioner

Taylor

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alabama

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 687 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, March 23, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, June 23, 1982

Advocates

Robert M. Beno (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Thomas R. Allison (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Taylor, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Exclusionary rule (admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Miranda warnings)

None

Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Kassel

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1618

Petitioner

Consolidated Freightways Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kassel

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 329 (1982)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1982

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Kassel, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Finley v. Murray

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2205

Petitioner

Finley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Murray

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 604 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, April 21, 1982

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1982

Advocates

John S. Elson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Scott A. Mayer (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Murray, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire

Mon, 07 Dec 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1208

Petitioner

New Hampshire

Respondent

New England Power Co.

Consolidation

No. 80-1471

No. 80-1610

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 331 (1982)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1982

Advocates

Donald K. Stern (on behalf of the Appellants in No. 80-1471 and No. 80-1610)

Gregory H. Smith (Attorney General of New Hampshire, on behalf of the Appellees)

Samuel Huntington (on behalf of the Appellant in No. 80-1208)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for New England Power Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-300

Petitioner

Ford Motor Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 219 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, April 20, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1982

Advocates

David A. Strauss (on behalf of the Respondent)

John R. Wester (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Ford Motor Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-9

Appellee

Seattle School District No. 1

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Washington

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 457 (1982)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, June 30, 1982

Advocates

Kenneth O. Eikenberry (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Michael W. Hoge (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

In 1978, a Seattle school district adopted a mandatory busing plan to integrate its schools. No court or administrative body found the district to be engaged in unlawful segregation. A statewide initiative adopted in 1978 mandated a neighborhood school policy. The policy provided for some exceptions including voluntary busing options and mandatory busing if so ordered by state or federal courts. The initiative blocked the implementation of Seattle's mandatory busing plan. School officials challenged the Washington government in federal court.

Question

Does the statewide initiative violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Seattle School District No. 1, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. The initiative reordered the educational decisionmaking process by moving the power over busing for purposes of integration to state control. The state explicitly employed "the racial nature of a decision to determine the decisionmaking process." This kind of state action places an unconstitutional burden on racial minorities within the governmental process.

Bread Political Action Committee v. Fec

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1481

Appellee

Fec

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Bread Political Action Committee

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 577 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, January 19, 1982

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1982

Advocates

Jeffrey Cole (on behalf of the Appellants)

Charles N. Steele (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bread Political Action Committee, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Election Campaign

None

Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. Of Ed. v. Rowley

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1002

Petitioner

Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. Of Ed.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rowley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 176 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, March 23, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1982

Advocates

Michael A. Chatoff (on behalf of the Respondent)

Raymond G. Kuntz (on behalf of the Petitioners)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. Of Ed., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Education of the Handicapped, Education for All Handicapped Children, or Individuals with Disabilities Education Acts, or related statutes, as amended; also see ADA

None

NLRB v. Hendricks Cty. Rural Electric Corp.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-885

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hendricks Cty. Rural Electric Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 80-1103

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 170 (1981)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, December 2, 1981

Advocates

Warren D. Krebs (on behalf of the Respondent/Petitioner)

Russ R. Mueller (on behalf of the Respondent/Petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Petitioner/Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for NLRB, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Common Cause v. Schmitt

Wed, 07 Oct 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-847

Petitioner

Common Cause

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Schmitt

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 80-1067

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 129 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, October 7, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, January 19, 1982

Advocates

Archibald Cox (on behalf of the Appellants)

Charles N. Steele (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Fidelity Federal Sav. & Loan Assn. v. De La Cuesta

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-750

Appellee

De La Cuesta

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Fidelity Federal Sav. & Loan Assn.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 141 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, April 28, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1982

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Fidelity Federal Sav. & Loan Assn., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Baldrige v. Shapiro

Wed, 02 Dec 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1436

Petitioner

Baldrige

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shapiro

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 80-1781

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 345 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, December 2, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1982

Advocates

George C. Cerrone, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners in No. 80-1781)

David H. Ben-Asher (on behalf of the Respondent in No. 80-1436)

Elliott Schulder (on behalf of Petitioners in No. 80-1436 and Respondents in No. 80-1781)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Hathorn v. Lovorn

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-451

Petitioner

Hathorn

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lovorn

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 255 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, April 27, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, June 15, 1982

Advocates

James C. Mayo (on behalf of the Petitioners)

William Bradford Reynolds (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Laurel G. Weir (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Hathorn, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

None

Northern Pipeline Const. v. Marathon Pipe Line

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-150

Appellee

Marathon Pipe Line

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Northern Pipeline Const.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 81-546

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 50 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, April 27, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1982

Advocates

Melvin I. Orenstein (Argued the cause for the appellee, Marathon Pipe Line)

John L. Devney (Argued the cause for the appellant, Northern Pipeline Construction)

Rex E. Lee (Argued the cause for the United States in both cases)

Facts of the Case

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 created a system of bankruptcy courts as an adjunct to the federal system of district courts. This case was decided together with United States v. Marathon Pipeline Co.

Question

Did the Act violate Article III of the Constitution?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Marathon Pipe Line, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 1, Paragraph 2: Good Behavior and Compensation Clause of Federal Judges

Yes. A plurality held that Congress had essentially conferred Article III powers to an adjunct system of courts and, consequently, "impermissibly removed most, if not all, of the essential attributes of the judicial power" from the district courts.

Schweiker v. Hogan

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-213

Appellee

Hogan

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Schweiker

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 569 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, March 24, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1982

Advocates

William H. Simon (on behalf of the Appellees)

George W. Jones (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Cabell v. Chavez-Salido

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-990

Appellee

Chavez-Salido

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Cabell

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 432 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, November 3, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, January 12, 1982

Advocates

Mary S. Burdick (on behalf of the Appellees)

William F. Stewart (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Zobel v. Williams

Wed, 07 Oct 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1146

Appellee

Williams

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Zobel

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 55 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, October 7, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1982

Advocates

Mark A. Sandberg (on behalf of the Appellants)

Avrum M. Gross (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Zobel, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Clements v. Fashing

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1290

Appellee

Fashing

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Clements

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 957 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, January 12, 1982

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1982

Advocates

Raymond C. Caballero (on behalf of the Apppellees)

James P. Allison (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Enmund v. Florida

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-5321

Petitioner

Enmund

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 782 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, March 23, 1982

Decided

Friday, July 2, 1982

Advocates

Lawrence A. Kaden (on behalf of the Respondent (Pro hac vice))

James S. Liebman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Enmund, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

None

Underwriters Assur. Co. v. N.C. Guaranty Assn.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1496

Petitioner

Underwriters Assur. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

N.C. Guaranty Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 691 (1982)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1982

Advocates

Theodore R. Boehm (on behalf of the Petitioner)

William S. Patterson (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Underwriters Assur. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause

None

Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service v. NLRB

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-931

Petitioner

Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 404 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1981

Decided

Monday, January 11, 1982

Advocates

Norton J. Come (on behalf of the Respondent)

Sidney A. Coven (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James T. Grady (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for NLRB, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

New York v. Ferber

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

Location

Bookstore Manhattan, NY

United States

40° 47' 0.366" N, 73° 57' 58.5" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-55

Petitioner

New York

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ferber

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 747 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, April 27, 1982

Decided

Friday, July 2, 1982

Advocates

Robert M. Pitler (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Herald P. Fahringer (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

A New York child pornography law prohibited persons from knowingly promoting sexual performances by children under the age of sixteen by distributing material which depicts such performances.

Question

Did the law violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

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

No. In the Court's first examination of a statute specifically targeted against child pornography, it found that the state's interest in preventing sexual exploitation of minors was a compelling "government objective of surpassing importance." The law was carefully drawn to protect children from the mental, physical, and sexual abuse associated with pornography while not violating the First Amendment.

Fair Assessment In Real Estate Assn. v. Mcnary

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-427

Petitioner

Fair Assessment In Real Estate Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mcnary

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 100 (1981)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, December 1, 1981

Advocates

David J. Newburger (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Thomas W. Wehrle (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mcnary, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Smith v. Phillips

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1082

Petitioner

Smith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Phillips

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 209 (1982)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1981

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1982

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

City Of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1577

Appellee

Aladdin's Castle, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

City Of Mesquite

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 283 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1982

Advocates

Philip W. Tone (on behalf of the Appellee)

Elland Archer (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Finnegan v. Leu

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2150

Petitioner

Finnegan

Respondent

Leu

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 431 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, February 24, 1982

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1982

Advocates

Samuel G. Bolotin (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Theodore M. Iorio (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Leu, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure

None

UMWA Health & Retirement Funds v. Robinson

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-61

Petitioner

UMWA Health & Retirement Funds

Respondent

Robinson

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 562 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, January 13, 1982

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1982

Advocates

Larry Franklin Sword (on behalf of the Respondents)

E. Calvin Golumbic (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Umwa Health & Retirement Funds, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Plyler v. Doe

Tue, 01 Dec 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Tyler Independent School District

1319 New Sunnybrook Tyler TX 75701

Tyler, TX 75701

United States

32° 19' 27.7896" N, 95° 17' 59.2656" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1538

Appellee

Doe

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Plyler

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 80-1934

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 202 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, December 1, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, June 15, 1982

Advocates

Peter D. Roos (Argued the cause for the appellees in Plyler v. Doe)

Peter A. Schey (Argued the cause for appellees in the related case)

John C. Hardy (Argued the cause for the appellants in Plyler v. Doe)

Richard L. Arnett (Argued the cause for appellants in the related case)

Facts of the Case

A revision to the Texas education laws in 1975 allowed the state to withhold from local school districts state funds for educating children of illegal aliens. This case was decided together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Child.

Question

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

Conclusion

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

Yes. The Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens, by denying them the right to an education, and because Texas could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down the law.

Rogers v. Lodge

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

Location

Burke County

602 N Liberty St Waynesboro GA 30830

Waynesboro, GA 30830

United States

33° 5' 25.9152" N, 82° 0' 55.764" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2100

Appellee

Lodge

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Rogers

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 613 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, February 23, 1982

Decided

Thursday, July 1, 1982

Advocates

E. Freeman Leverett (Argued the cause for the appellants)

David F. Walbert (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

Eight black citizens of Burke County, Georgia, challenged the at-large system of elections within the county. Although a substantial number of blacks lived within the county, no minority candidate had ever been elected to the Burke County Board of Commissioners, the chief governing body. To be elected, candidates had to receive a majority of the votes cast in the primary or general election.

Question

Did the system of elections violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of Burke County's black citizens?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Lodge, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the at-large system of elections in Burke County violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that the at-large system was operated as a purposeful device to further racial discrimination. The Court held that there was extensive historical evidence that the county had impeded the political participation of black citizens and that the at-large system minimized even further the ability of blacks to participate in the political process. The Court also upheld the system of single-member districts established by a district court.

Jewett v. Commissioner

Tue, 01 Dec 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1614

Petitioner

Jewett

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Commissioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 305 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, December 1, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1982

Advocates

Stuart A. Smith (on behalf of Respondent)

James D. St. Clair (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

White v. New Hampshire Dept. Of Empl. Sec.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-5887

Petitioner

White

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New Hampshire Dept. Of Empl. Sec.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 445 (1982)

Argued

Monday, November 30, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, March 2, 1982

Advocates

Marc R. Scheer (on behalf of Respondent)

B. Richard Larson (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for White, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

Railway Labor Executives' Assn. v. Gibbons

Wed, 02 Dec 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-415

Appellee

Gibbons

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Railway Labor Executives' Assn.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 80-1239

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 457 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, December 2, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, March 2, 1982

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Railway Labor Executives' Assn., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Eddings v. Oklahoma

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-5727

Petitioner

Eddings

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oklahoma

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 104 (1982)

Argued

Monday, November 2, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, January 19, 1982

Advocates

Jay C. Baker (on behalf of the Petitioner)

David W. Lee (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Eddings, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

None

Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-419

Petitioner

Arizona

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maricopa County Medical Society

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 332 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, November 4, 1981

Decided

Friday, June 18, 1982

Advocates

Philip P. Berelson (on behalf of the Respondents)

Kenneth R. Reed (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Stephen M. Shapiro (amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Arizona, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Weinberger v. Rossi

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1924

Petitioner

Weinberger

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rossi

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 25 (1982)

Argued

Monday, February 22, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, March 31, 1982

Advocates

Barbara E. Etkind (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Randy M. Mott (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Weinberger, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 7151

None

Pullman-Standard v. Swint

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1190

Petitioner

Pullman-Standard

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Swint

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 80-1193

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 273 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, January 19, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, April 27, 1982

Advocates

Elaine R. Jones (on behalf of the Respondents)

Michael H. Gottesman (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Pullman-Standard, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Army & Air Force Exchange Service v. Sheehan

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1437

Petitioner

Army & Air Force Exchange Service

Respondent

Sheehan

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 728 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, February 23, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1982

Advocates

Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (on behalf of Petitioner)

Ira E. Tobolowsky (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Army & Air Force Exchange Service, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Tucker

None

United States v. Frady

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1595

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Frady

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 152 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, December 8, 1981

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1982

Advocates

Daniel M. Schember (on behalf of the Respondent)

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Marine Bank v. Weaver

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1562

Petitioner

Marine Bank

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Weaver

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 551 (1982)

Argued

Monday, January 11, 1982

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1982

Advocates

Andrew J. Conner (on behalf of the Respondent)

Daniel L. R. Miller (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Diedrich v. Commissioner

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2204

Petitioner

Diedrich

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Commissioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 191 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, February 24, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, June 15, 1982

Advocates

Norman E. Beal (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Stuart A. Smith (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Commissioner, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

United States v. Ross

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

Location

Vehicle of Ross

439 Ridge Street Washington D.C. 20001

Washington 20001

United States

38° 54' 24.0228" N, 77° 1' 3.0288" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2209

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ross

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 798 (1982)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1982

Advocates

Andrew L. Frey (Argued the cause for the United States)

William J. Garber (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Acting on a tip that Ross was selling drugs from his car in the District of Columbia, police officers pulled Ross over, opened his trunk, and discovered a bag of heroin. After returning to the station, another search uncovered $3200 in cash. Officers acted without a warrant in each search.

Question

Did the police violate the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

The Court held that since the search was done with probable cause and extended into the realm (Ross's car) of which a magistrate issuing a warrant would have approved, the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Justice Stevens defended the search of the vehicle's trunk, arguing that if probable cause justifies a vehicle search, then every part of the vehicle is open to inspection.

Summit Valley Industries, Inc. v. Carpenters

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-497

Petitioner

Summit Valley Industries, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Carpenters

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 717 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, April 28, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1982

Advocates

Donald C. Robinson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Davis S. Paull (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Carpenters, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Longshoremen v. Allied International, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1663

Petitioner

Longshoremen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Allied International, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 212 (1982)

Argued

Monday, January 18, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, April 20, 1982

Advocates

Duane R. Batista (on behalf of the Respondent)

Ernest L. Mathews, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Lawrence G. Wallace (as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Allied International, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Tibbs v. Florida

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-5114

Petitioner

Tibbs

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 31 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, March 2, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1982

Advocates

Louis R. Beller (on behalf of Petitioner)

Michael A. Palecki (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Johnson

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1608

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Johnson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 537 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, February 24, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1982

Advocates

Elliott Schulder (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John F. Walter (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Johnson, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Florida Dept. of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1348

Petitioner

Florida Dept. of State

Respondent

Treasure Salvors, Inc.

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 670 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, January 20, 1982

Decided

Thursday, July 1, 1982

Advocates

Susan Gamble Smathers (Argued the cause pro hac vice for the petitioner)

David Paul Horan (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Immediately after Treasure Salvors, Inc. ("Treasure") located a 17th-century Spanish wreck of its coast, Florida claimed ownership of the remains. Treasure contracted with the Florida Division of Archives ("Archives") to salvage the wreck in exchange for 75% of the recovered artifacts' appraised value. Meanwhile, in the unrelated proceedings of United States v. Florida, the United States won a judgment granting it ownership of the lands, minerals, and other natural resources in the area of the Spanish wreck's discovery. Upon learning of this ruling, Treasure sought a declaration of title to the wreck. Following a second favorable appellate decision, Treasure sought and received a warrant to seize all artifacts from the Archives. Florida challenged the warrant and its issuing district court's jurisdiction, but lost on both counts. On appeal from an unfavorable appellate ruling, the Supreme Court granted Florida certiorari.

Question

Does a district court's issuance of a property seizure warrant against a state violate the Eleventh Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Treasure Salvors, Inc., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment

No. In a plurality opinion, the Court first held that while a state enjoys limited immunity from federal process under the Eleventh Amendment, its officers do not. In the present case, the seizure warrant was filed against Florida's officers in the Archives. The Archive officers, although acting in official state capacity and defended by state attorneys, are not immune as the state itself may be from having to pay a judgment against them. Moreover, the Court found that although a profit sharing contract existed between Treasure and Archives, it did not justify Archive's refusal to surrender ownership over the artifacts pursuant to a federal warrant. Finally, the Court ruled that the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Florida's interest in the artifacts because these materials were held in a different district court's jurisdiction. As such, the decision was reversed in part and remanded as to its jurisdictional violations.

Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2177

Petitioner

Lehman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lycoming County Children's Services

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 502 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, March 30, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, June 30, 1982

Advocates

Charles F. Greevy, III (on behalf of the Respondent)

Martin Guggenheim (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Lycoming County Children's Services, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp.

Mon, 07 Dec 1981 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-6045

Petitioner

Kremer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chemical Construction Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 461 (1982)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1981

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1982

Advocates

David A. Barrett (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Robert Layton (on behalf of the Respondent)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the U. S. and E. E. O. C., as amici curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Greene v. Lindsey

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-341

Appellee

Lindsey

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Greene

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 444 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, February 23, 1982

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1982

Advocates

Robert Frederick Smith (on behalf of the Appellees)

William L. Hoge, III (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. New Mexico

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-702

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New Mexico

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 720 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, December 8, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1982

Advocates

George W. Jones (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Daniel M. Friedman (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

INS v. Chadha

Mon, 22 Feb 1982 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.

80-1832

Petitioner

Chadha

Respondent

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)

Consolidation

United States House of Representatives v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), No. 80-2170

United States Senate v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), No. 80-2171

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

462 U.S. 919 (1983)

Argued

Monday, February 22, 1982

Reargued:

Tuesday, December 7, 1982

Decided

Thursday, June 23, 1983

Advocates

Alan B. Morrison (Reargued the cause for Jagdish Rai Chadha in all cases)

Michael Davidson (Reargued the cause for the petitioner in No. 80-2171)

Eugene Gressman (Reargued the cause for the petitioner in No. 80-2170)

Rex E. Lee (Reargued the cause for the Immigration and Naturalization Service in all cases)

Facts of the Case

In one section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Congress authorized either House of Congress to invalidate and suspend deportation rulings of the United States Attorney General. Chadha had stayed in the U.S. past his visa deadline. Though Chadha conceded that he was deportable, an immigration judge suspended his deportation. The House of Representatives voted without debate or recorded vote to deport Chadha. This case was decided together with United States House of Representatives v. Chadha and United States Senate v. Chadha.

Question

Did the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allowed a one-House veto of executive actions, violate the separation of powers doctrine?

Conclusion

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

The Court held that the particular section of the Act in question did violate the Constitution. Recounting the debates of the Constitutional Convention over issues of bicameralism and separation of powers, Chief Justice Burger concluded that even though the Act would have enhanced governmental efficiency, it violated the "explicit constitutional standards" regarding lawmaking and congressional authority.

Community Communications Co., v. Boulder

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1350

Petitioner

Community Communications Co.,

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Boulder

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 40 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, January 13, 1982

Advocates

Thomas P. Mc Mahon (amicus curiae)

Jeffrey H. Howard (on behalf of the Respondents)

Harold R. Farrow (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Community Communications Co.,, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Fec v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-939

Petitioner

Fec

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 80-1129

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 27 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, October 6, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, November 10, 1981

Advocates

Robert F. Bauer (on behalf of Respondent, DSCC)

Jan W. Baran (on behalf of the Petitioner, NRSC)

Charles N. Steele (on behalf of the Petitioner, FEC)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Fec, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Election Campaign

None

Jacksonville Bulk Terminals v. Longshoremen

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1045

Petitioner

Jacksonville Bulk Terminals

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Longshoremen

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 702 (1982)

Argued

Monday, January 18, 1982

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 1982

Advocates

Ernest L. Mathews, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondents)

Thomas P. Gies (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Longshoremen, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Norris-LaGuardia

None

Crawford v. Los Angeles Board Of Education

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-38

Petitioner

Crawford

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Los Angeles Board Of Education

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 527 (1982)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, June 30, 1982

Advocates

Laurence H. Tribe (on behalf of Petitioners)

G. William Shea (on behalf of Respondents)

Rex E. Lee (as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Los Angeles Board Of Education, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

General Telephone Co. Of Southwest v. Falcon

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-574

Petitioner

General Telephone Co. Of Southwest

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Falcon

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 147 (1982)

Argued

Monday, April 26, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1982

Advocates

Noyes Thompson Powers (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Frank P. Hernandez (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for General Telephone Co. Of Southwest, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Rose v. Lundy

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-846

Petitioner

Rose

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lundy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 509 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, October 14, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, March 3, 1982

Advocates

John C. Zimmermann (on behalf of the Petitioner)

D. Shannon Smith (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rose, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Hopper v. Evans

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1714

Petitioner

Hopper

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Evans

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 605 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, March 24, 1982

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1982

Advocates

Edward E. Carnes (on behalf of the Petitioners)

John L. Carroll (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Hopper, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

None