Cases - 1982 term

Montana v. Jackson

Sat, 19 May 2012 04:39:25 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1531

Petitioner

Montana

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jackson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 1030 (1983)

Decided

Monday, March 21, 1983

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Florida v. Royer

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2146

Petitioner

Florida

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Royer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 491 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, October 12, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, March 23, 1983

Advocates

Theodore Klein (on behalf of the Respondent)

Calvin L. Fox (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of U.S. as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Royer, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Jones v. Barnes

Tue, 22 Feb 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1794

Petitioner

Jones

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Barnes

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

463 U.S. 745 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, February 22, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, July 5, 1983

Advocates

Sheila Ginsberg Riesel (on behalf of the Respondent)

Barbara D. Underwood (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Jones, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington

Tue, 22 Mar 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Internal Revenue Service

1111 Constitution Ave NW Washington DC 20224

Washington, DC 20224

United States

38° 53' 32.1072" N, 77° 0' 57.3876" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-2338

Appellant

Donald Regan, Secretary of the Treasury

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Taxation With Representation of Washington

Respondent Type

Appellee

Consolidation

No. 82-134, Taxation With Representation of Washington v. Regan, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

461 U.S. 540 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, March 22, 1983

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1983

Advocates

Rex E. Lee (Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the appellants in No. 81-2338)

John Cary Sims (argued the cause for the appellee in No. 81-2338)

Facts of the Case

Two non-profit groups merged to form the group Taxation With Representation of Washington (TWR). One of the original groups obtained 501(c)3 status from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which allowed donors to make tax-deductible donations to it. Because the other group participated in political lobbying, it did not qualify for 501(C)(3) status and could not offer tax-deductible donations. Since the newly formed TWR also participated in "substantial lobbying," the IRS denied it tax-deduction privileges. TWR alleged in District Court that the IRS's "substantial lobbying" restriction for 501(C)(3) status violated its First Amendment rights by imposing an "unconstitutional burden" on its ability to receive tax-deductible donations. TWR also argued that the restriction violated its Fifth Amendment equal protection rights since veterans' organizations that lobbied extensively could receive tax-deductible donations. The District Court dismissed the complaint but the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the "substantial lobbying" restriction did impair TWR's Fifth Amendment equal protection rights.

Question

Does the IRS violate the First Amendment by denying 501(c)3 tax-deduction privileges to non-profit groups that participate in "substantial lobbying"? Does the IRS violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment by denying 501(c)3 tax-deduction privileges to non-profit groups that participate in "substantial lobbying"?

Conclusion

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

No and no. Justice William H. Rehnquist authored the opinion for a unanimous court. Allowing a non-profit to solicit tax-deductible donations is a form of paying for its operations. Pointing to its decision in Cammarano v. United States, the Court maintained that "Congress is not required by the First Amendment to subsidize lobbying." The federal government does not have to sponsor every activity that the First Amendment protects, and its choice to sponsor one type of activity does not force it to sponsor every related type of activity. The federal government can choose to support veterans' lobbying organizations without also having to fund the lobbying of other groups. Non- profit groups interested in offering tax-deductions to donors can separate with the parts of the organization engaged in lobbying.

Bowen v. United States Postal Service

Wed, 06 Oct 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-525

Petitioner

Bowen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States Postal Service

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

459 U.S. 212 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, October 6, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, January 11, 1983

Advocates

Barbara E. Etkind (on behalf of the federal responding supporting Petitioner)

William B. Poff (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Asher W. Schwartz (on behalf of the Respondent Union)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Minn. Star & Trib. Co. v. MN Comm. of Rev.

Wed, 12 Jan 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Minnesota State Legislature

100 Constitution Ave St. Paul MN 55103

St. Paul, MN 55103

United States

44° 57' 16.2288" N, 93° 6' 13.6224" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1839

Appellee

MN Comm. of Rev.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Minn. Star & Trib. Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 575 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, January 12, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, March 29, 1983

Advocates

Lawrence C. Brown (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Paul R. Kempainen (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

From 1967 to 1971, the Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company, a publisher of a morning and evening newspaper in Minneapolis, was exempt from a state sales and use tax provided periodic publications. In 1971, the Minnesota legislature imposed a "use tax" on the cost of paper and ink products consumed in publishing. In 1974, the legislature exempted the first $100,000 worth of ink and paper consumed a year. After the enactment of this exemption, the Star Tribune found itself paying roughly two-thirds of the total revenue raised by the tax.

Question

Did the taxing scheme enacted by the Minnesota legislature violate the freedom of press guaranteed by the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Minn. Star & Trib. Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

The Court held that while the First Amendment did not prohibit all regulation of the press, Minnesota had "created a special tax that applie[d] only to certain publications protected by the First Amendment." Noting that there was "substantial evidence that differential taxation of the press would have troubled the Framers of the First Amendment," the Court held that when states single out the press "the threat of burdensome taxes becomes acute." The Court concluded that "recognizing a power in the State not only to single out the press but also to tailor the tax so that it singles out a few members of the press presents such a potential for abuse that no interest suggested by Minnesota can justify the scheme."

Barclay v. Florida

Wed, 30 Mar 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-6908

Petitioner

Barclay

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

463 U.S. 939 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, March 30, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, July 6, 1983

Advocates

James M. Nabrit, III (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Wallace E. Allbritton (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Florida, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

None

Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer

Mon, 28 Feb 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-131

Petitioner

Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pfeifer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

462 U.S. 523 (1983)

Argued

Monday, February 28, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, June 15, 1983

Advocates

Robert W. Murdoch (on behalf of Petitioner)

Jerome M. Libenson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation

None

Exxon Corp. v. Eagerton

Tue, 22 Feb 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1020

Appellee

Eagerton

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Exxon Corp.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 81-1268

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

462 U.S. 176 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, February 22, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, June 8, 1983

Advocates

Rae M. Crowe (on behalf of the Appellants)

John J. Breckenridge (on behalf of the Appellees)

C. B. Arendall, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Tuten v. United States

Tue, 01 Mar 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-6756

Petitioner

Tuten

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 660 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, March 1, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, March 30, 1983

Advocates

Barbara E. Etkind (on behalf of the Respondent)

Linda Gillespie Stuntz (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 5005

None

Karcher v. Daggett

Wed, 02 Mar 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Location

New Jersey General Assembly

125 West State Street Trenton NJ 08625

Trenton, NJ 08625

United States

40° 13' 15.4308" N, 74° 46' 11.1252" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-2057

Appellee

Daggett

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Karcher

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

462 U.S. 725 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, March 2, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, June 22, 1983

Advocates

Bernard Hellring (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Kenneth J. Guido, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

Democrats in control of the New Jersey Legislature designed a plan for congressional redistricting in the state which the outgoing Democratic governor signed into law. Even though the district populations differed by less than one percent from each other, they were clearly drawn to maximize Democratic power in the state.

Question

Did the gerrymandering in the reapportionment plan violate Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Daggett, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Composition of the House of Representatives

Even though the population differences in the districts were slight, the Court held that they were unconstitutional because they "were not the result of a good-faith effort to achieve population equality." Justice Brennan upheld past Court decisions (Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 1973, and Wesberry v. Sanders, 1964) and argued that relying on a strict numerical standard of populations to assess district equality would be misguided.

Connecticut v. Johnson

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-927

Petitioner

Connecticut

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Johnson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 73 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, October 13, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1983

Advocates

Jerrold H. Barnett (on behalf of the Respondent)

Linda K. Lager (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Brown v. Thompson

Mon, 21 Mar 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-65

Appellee

Thompson

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Brown

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

462 U.S. 835 (1983)

Argued

Monday, March 21, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, June 22, 1983

Advocates

Randall T. Cox (on behalf of the Appellees)

Suellen L. Davidson (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

In apportioning its state legislative seats, the State of Wyoming made provisions to allocate to each county at least one state representative. With the state's total population and its sixty-four House seats, the ideal apportionment would have been 7,337 persons per representative. Given the guarantee of county representation, Niobrara County, with a population of less than half the ideal (2,924), was allocated a House seat.

Question

Did the State of Wyoming violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by allocating one of its state House seats to a county with a population considerably lower than the average population per state representative?

Conclusion

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

The Court upheld the Wyoming apportionment scheme and found no Fourteenth Amendment violations. Justice Powell argued that using counties as legislative districts and assuring at least one representative per county supported "substantial and legitimate state concerns." Since the population variations in the Wyoming plan were the result of the consistent application of a nondiscriminatory and legitimate state policy, the plan was consistent with the Constitution. Any dilution of voting strength which the constituents of the other sixty-three representatives may have experienced as a result of Niobrara's relatively small population was minimal and irrelevant given the advantages of the Wyoming scheme.

Arizona Governing Committee v. Norris

Mon, 28 Mar 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-52

Petitioner

Arizona Governing Committee

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Norris

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

Argued

Monday, March 28, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, July 6, 1983

Advocates

John L. Endicott (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Amy Jo Gittler (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

Split Vote

None

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Nrdc

Tue, 19 Apr 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-524

Petitioner

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.

Respondent

Nrdc

Consolidation

No. 82-545

No. 82-551

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

462 U.S. 87 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, April 19, 1983

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1983

Advocates

David A. Strauss (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Timothy B. Atkeson (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Environmental Policy

None

Pickett v. Brown

Wed, 27 Apr 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-5576

Appellee

Brown

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Pickett

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

462 U.S. 1 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, April 27, 1983

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1983

Advocates

Susan Short (on behalf of the Appellees)

Harold W. Horne (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Colorado v. New Mexico

Mon, 04 Oct 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80 ORIG

Plaintiff

Colorado

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

New Mexico

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

459 U.S. 176 (1982)

Argued

Monday, October 4, 1982

Decided

Monday, December 13, 1982

Advocates

Richard A. Simms (on behalf of the Defendants)

Robert F. Welborn (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association

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

Location

Perry Township Metropolitan School District

6548 Orinoco Ave Indianapolis IN 46227

Indianapolis, IN 46227

United States

39° 40' 17.5872" N, 86° 8' 5.334" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-896

Appellee

Perry Education Association

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Perry Local Educators' Association

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 37 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, October 13, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1983

Advocates

Robert H. Chanin (on behalf of the Appellant)

Richard L. Zweig (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

The Perry Education Association (PEA) won an election against the Perry Local Educators' Association (PLEA) to serve as the sole union representing teachers in Perry Township, Indiana. As part of the collective-bargaining agreement reached between PEA and the Board of Education of Perry Township, PEA obtained exclusive rights to use the internal school mail system and PLEA was denied access. PLEA contended that denying their members use of the mail system violated the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. A Federal District Court ruled against PLEA but the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed.

Question

Does a local school board violate the First Amendment by disallowing a nonofficial teachers union from using its internal school mail system?

Conclusion

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

No. Justice Byron White delivered the opinion of a 5-4 court. The school board chose to grant exclusive access to the official teachers union in order to facilitate a collective-bargaining agreement. It did not act to suppress the speech of rival teachers unions. The school board entrusted PEA with obligations as the sole representative of teachers that would require the use of the mail system. PLEA did not have these obligations and could communicate effectively though many other channels. Since the mail system was not a "public forum," PLEA had no unassailable right to access it. In his dissent, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. contended that the mail system constituted government property and PLEA lost access privileges because its viewpoints differed from those of the official union.

Arizona v. California

Wed, 08 Dec 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

8 ORIG

Plaintiff

Arizona

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

California

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 605 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, December 8, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, March 30, 1983

Advocates

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

Carl Boronkay (on behalf of State Parties)

Ralph Hunsaker (on behalf of State Parties)

Lawrence A. Aschenbrenner (on behalf of Indian Tribes)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for California, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment

None

United States v. Mitchell

Tue, 01 Mar 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1748

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mitchell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

463 U.S. 206 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, March 1, 1983

Decided

Monday, June 27, 1983

Advocates

Joshua I. Schwartz (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Charles A. Hobbs (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

American Paper Inst. v. American Elec. Power

Tue, 22 Mar 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-34

Petitioner

American Paper Inst.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

American Elec. Power

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 82-226

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

461 U.S. 402 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, March 22, 1983

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1983

Advocates

Edward Berlin (on behalf of the Respondent)

Paul M. Bator (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for American Paper Inst., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Public Utility Regulatory Policy

None

Heckler v. Campbell

Mon, 28 Feb 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1983

Petitioner

Heckler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Campbell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

461 U.S. 458 (1983)

Argued

Monday, February 28, 1983

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1983

Advocates

Ruben Nazario (on behalf of the Respondent)

John H. Garvey (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Heckler, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

None

Anderson v. Celebrezze

Mon, 06 Dec 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1635

Petitioner

Anderson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Celebrezze

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 780 (1983)

Argued

Monday, December 6, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, April 19, 1983

Advocates

Joel S. Taylor (on behalf of the Respondent)

George T. Frampton, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy

Wed, 06 Oct 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-825

Petitioner

Pillsbury Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Conboy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

459 U.S. 248 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, October 6, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, January 11, 1983

Advocates

Michael W. Coffield (on behalf of the Respondent)

Francis J. Mc Connell (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Conboy, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Garner

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1613

Appellee

Garner

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Memphis Bank & Trust Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

459 U.S. 392 (1983)

Argued

Monday, November 29, 1982

Decided

Monday, January 24, 1983

Advocates

Jimmy C. Creecy (on behalf of appellee, William M. Leech, Jr)

J. Minor Tait, Jr. (on behalf of appellees Garner and Foster)

K. Martin Worthy (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Memphis Bank & Trust Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

American Bank & Trust Co. v. Dallas County

Tue, 29 Mar 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1717

Petitioner

American Bank & Trust Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dallas County

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

463 U.S. 855 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, March 29, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, July 5, 1983

Advocates

Ernest J. Brown (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Marvin S. Sloman (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Carroll R. Graham (on behalf of the Respondents)

Earl Luna (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for American Bank & Trust Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 31 U.S.C. 742

None

South Dakota v. Neville

Wed, 08 Dec 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1453

Petitioner

South Dakota

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Neville

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

459 U.S. 553 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, December 8, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, February 22, 1983

Advocates

Mark V. Meierhenry (on behalf of the Petitioner)

David R. Gienapp (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for South Dakota, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Smith v. Wade

Wed, 10 Nov 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1196

Petitioner

Smith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wade

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

461 U.S. 30 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, November 10, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, April 20, 1983

Advocates

Robert L. Presson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Bradley H. Lockenvitz (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Generix Drug Corp.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1222

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Generix Drug Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 453 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, November 3, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, March 22, 1983

Advocates

Robyn Greene (on behalf of Respondent)

Jerrold J. Ganzfried (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic, and related statutes

None

Shepard v. NLRB

Mon, 06 Dec 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1627

Petitioner

Shepard

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

459 U.S. 344 (1983)

Argued

Monday, December 6, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, January 18, 1983

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Respondents)

Robert F. Gore (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for NLRB, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock v. EEOC

Wed, 27 Apr 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-411

Petitioner

Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

462 U.S. 669 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, April 27, 1983

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1983

Advocates

Andrew M. Kramer (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Harriet S. Shapiro (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Kush v. Rutledge

Wed, 12 Jan 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1675

Petitioner

Kush

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rutledge

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 719 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, January 12, 1983

Decided

Monday, April 4, 1983

Advocates

Robert Ong Hing (on behalf of Respondent)

Michael J. Gallagher (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Rutledge, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1985)

None

Moses H. Cone Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1203

Petitioner

Moses H. Cone Hospital

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mercury Constr. Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 1 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, November 2, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1983

Advocates

Jack W. Floyd (on behalf of Petitioner)

A.H. Gaede, Jr. (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mercury Constr. Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe

Tue, 19 Apr 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-331

Petitioner

New Mexico

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mescalero Apache Tribe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

462 U.S. 324 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, April 19, 1983

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1983

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (as amicus curiae)

George E. Fettinger (on behalf of the Respondent)

Thomas L. Dunigan (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mescalero Apache Tribe, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman

Tue, 22 Feb 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-2101

Petitioner

Pennhurst State School & Hosp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Halderman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 89 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, February 22, 1983

Reargued:

Monday, October 3, 1983

Decided

Monday, January 23, 1984

Advocates

H. Bartow Farr, III (on behalf of the Petitioners)

David Ferleger (on behalf of the Respondents)

Thomas K. Gilhool (on behalf of the Respondents)

Allen C. Warshaw (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Pennhurst State School & Hosp., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment

None

Dirks v. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Mon, 21 Mar 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-276

Petitioner

Dirks

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

463 U.S. 646 (1983)

Argued

Monday, March 21, 1983

Decided

Friday, July 1, 1983

Advocates

David Bonderman (on behalf of Petitioner)

Paul Gonson (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Dirks, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Pacific G & E Co. v. State Energy Res. C & D Com.

Mon, 17 Jan 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Location

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.

77 Beale Street San Francisco CA 94177

San Francisco, CA 94177

United States

37° 47' 29.3424" N, 122° 23' 45.2976" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1945

Petitioner

Pacific G & E Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

State Energy Res. C & D Com.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

461 U.S. 190 (1983)

Argued

Monday, January 17, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, April 20, 1983

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

John R. McDonough (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

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

John R. Mc Donough (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

A California law dictated that before additional nuclear power plants could be built, the state energy commission had to determine that there would be adequate storage capacity for spent fuel rods. Two utility companies challenged the law, arguing that its provisions had been preempted by the federal Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

Question

Did the California law unconstitutionally intrude into areas of federal authority as defined by the Atomic Energy Act?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for State Energy Res. C & D Com., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Atomic Energy

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the California law did not impinge upon congressional authority. The Court found that because the rationale for enacting the law was an economic one, it did not interfere with federal regulations governing nuclear safety. The Court held that Congress had left "sufficient authority in the states to allow the development of nuclear power to be slowed or even stopped for economic reasons" and that the courts should not rework the division of regulatory authority created by Congress.

Nevada v. United States

Wed, 27 Apr 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-2245

Petitioner

Nevada

Respondent

United States

Consolidation

No. 81-2276

No. 82-38

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

463 U.S. 110 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, April 27, 1983

Decided

Friday, June 24, 1983

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the United States)

E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr (on behalf of Nevada)

Robert S. Pelcyger (on behalf of Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians)

Frederick G. Girard (on behalf of Truckee-Carson Irrigation District)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Nevada, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: res judicata

None

Briscoe v. Lahue

Tue, 09 Nov 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1404

Petitioner

Briscoe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lahue

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 325 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, November 9, 1982

Decided

Monday, March 7, 1983

Advocates

Edmund B. Moran, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Harriet Lipkin (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Jefferson County Pharm. Assn. v. Abbott Labs.

Mon, 08 Nov 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-827

Petitioner

Jefferson County Pharm. Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Abbott Labs.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 150 (1983)

Argued

Monday, November 8, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1983

Advocates

David Klingsberg (on behalf of Respondent)

Joe L. Tucker, Jr. (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Jefferson County Pharm. Assn., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Robinson-Patman

None

U.S. Postal Service Bd. Of Govs. v. Aikens

Tue, 09 Nov 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1044

Petitioner

U.S. Postal Service Bd. Of Govs.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aikens

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 711 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, November 9, 1982

Decided

Monday, April 4, 1983

Advocates

Jack Greenberg (on behalf of the Respondent)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for U.S. Postal Service Bd. Of Govs., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Oregon v. Bradshaw

Mon, 28 Mar 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1857

Petitioner

Oregon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bradshaw

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

462 U.S. 1039 (1983)

Argued

Monday, March 28, 1983

Decided

Thursday, June 23, 1983

Advocates

Gary D. Babcock (on behalf of the Respondent)

David B. Frohnmayer (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Oregon, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miranda Warnings

None

Akron v. Akron Center For Reproductive Health

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

Location

Akron City Council

166 S. High Street Akron OH 44308

Akron, OH 44308

United States

41° 4' 50.4156" N, 81° 31' 5.0952" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-746

Petitioner

Akron

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Akron Center For Reproductive Health

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., et al. v. City of Akron et al., No. 81-1172

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

462 U.S. 416 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, November 30, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, June 15, 1983

Facts of the Case

In 1978 the Akron City Council enacted an ordinance which established seventeen provisions to regulate the performance of abortions. Among other things, the ordinance required: all abortions performed after the first trimester to be done in hospitals, parental consent before the procedure could be performed on an unmarried minor, doctors to counsel prospective patients, a twenty-four hour waiting period, and that fetal remains be disposed of in a "humane and sanitary manner." Some of the ordinance's provisions were invalidated by a federal district court.

Question

Did several provisions of the Akron ordinance violate a woman's right to an abortion as guaranteed by the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade and the right- to-privacy doctrine as implied by the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Akron Center For Reproductive Health, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

The Court affirmed its commitment to protecting a woman's reproductive rights by invalidating the provisions of Akron's ordinance. Generally, Justice Powell's opinion reiterates the Court's findings in Roe and reasons that certain provisions of the ordinance violated the Constitution because they were clearly intended to direct women away from choosing the abortion option. They were not implemented out of medical necessities. The fetal disposal clause was struck down because its language was too vague to determine conduct subject to criminal prosecution.

Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB

Tue, 29 Mar 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-2257

Petitioner

Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

461 U.S. 731 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, March 29, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1983

Advocates

Carolyn F. Corwin (on behalf of the Respondents)

Lawrence Allen Katz (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Morris v. Slappy

Wed, 01 Dec 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1095

Petitioner

Morris

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Slappy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

461 U.S. 1 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, December 1, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, April 20, 1983

Advocates

Michael B. Bassi (on behalf of the Respondent)

Dane R. Gillette (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bell v. United States

Mon, 25 Apr 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-5119

Petitioner

Bell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

462 U.S. 356 (1983)

Argued

Monday, April 25, 1983

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1983

Advocates

Rudolph W. Giuliani (on behalf of Respondent)

Roy W. Allman (on behalf of the Petitioner (appointed by this Court))

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 2113

None

Texas v. New Mexico

Wed, 30 Mar 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

65 ORIG

Plaintiff

Texas

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

New Mexico

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

462 U.S. 554 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, March 30, 1983

Decided

Friday, June 17, 1983

Advocates

Charlotte Uram (on behalf of the Defendant)

R. Lambeth Townsend (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1180

Petitioner

Dickerson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New Banner Institute, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 103 (1983)

Argued

Monday, November 29, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1983

Advocates

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lewis C. Lanier (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Dickerson, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets, National Firearms, Organized Crime Control, Comprehensive Crime Control, or Gun Control Acts, except for RICO (q.v.) portion

None

Director, Owcp v. Perini North River Assoc.

Mon, 04 Oct 1982 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-897

Petitioner

Director, Owcp

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Perini North River Assoc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

459 U.S. 297 (1983)

Argued

Monday, October 4, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, January 11, 1983

Advocates

Martin Krutzel (on behalf of the Respondents)

Richard G. Wilkins (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Director, Owcp, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

North Dakota v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-773

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

North Dakota

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 300 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, November 2, 1982

Decided

Monday, March 7, 1983

Advocates

Barbara E. Etkind (on behalf of the Appellee)

Robert O. Wefald (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 16 U.S.C. 718

None