Cases - 1983 term

Heckler v. Community Health Services

Mon, 27 Feb 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-56

Petitioner

Heckler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Community Health Services

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 51 (1984)

Argued

Monday, February 27, 1984

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1984

Advocates

Raymond G. Hasley (on behalf of Respondents)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Colorado v. Nunez

Tue, 17 Jan 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1845

Petitioner

Colorado

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nunez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 324 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, January 17, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, February 21, 1984

Advocates

Steven Leon Bernard (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Kenneth H. Stern (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Hobby v. United States

Wed, 25 Apr 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-2140

Petitioner

Hobby

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 339 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, April 25, 1984

Decided

Monday, July 2, 1984

Advocates

Daniel H. Pollitt (of the Petitioner)

Joshua I. Schwartz (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Pulley v. Harris

Mon, 07 Nov 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1095

Petitioner

Pulley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Harris

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 37 (1984)

Argued

Monday, November 7, 1983

Decided

Monday, January 23, 1984

Advocates

Michael D. Wellington (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Anthony G. Amsterdam (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Nix v. Williams

Wed, 18 Jan 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Police Car

I-80 West Williamsburg IA 52361

Williamsburg, IA 52361

United States

41° 39' 40.0284" N, 92° 0' 32.6412" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1651

Petitioner

Nix

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Williams

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 431 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, January 18, 1984

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1984

Advocates

Robert Bartels (By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the respondent)

Kathryn A. Oberly (Rgued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Brent R. Appel (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Williams was arrested for the murder of a ten-year-old girl who's body he disposed of along a gravel road. State law enforcement officials engaged in a massive search for the child's body. During the search, after responding to an officer's appeal for assistance, Williams made statements to the police (without an attorney present) which helped lead the searchers to the child's body. The defendant's Miranda rights were only read to him after his arrest.

Question

Should evidence resulting in an arrest be excluded from trial because it was improperly obtained?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Nix, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Exclusionary rule (admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Right to Counsel)

No. The Court relied on the "inevitable discovery doctrine," as it held that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the child's body as evidence since it was clear that the volunteer search teams would have discovered the body even absent Williams's statements.

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1186

Petitioner

Trans World Airlines, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Franklin Mint Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 82-1465

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 243 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, November 30, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1984

Advocates

John N. Romans (on behalf of Transworld Airlines, Inc)

Joshua I. Schwartz (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

John R. Foster (on behalf of Franklin Mint Corporation)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Trans World Airlines, Inc., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Treaty

None

Richardson v. United States

Tue, 20 Mar 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-2113

Petitioner

Richardson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 317 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1984

Decided

Friday, June 29, 1984

Advocates

Michael W. McConnell (on behalf of the respondent)

Allan M. Palmer (on behalf of petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Richardson, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1031

Petitioner

Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hyde

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 2 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, November 2, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, March 27, 1984

Advocates

Frank H. Easterbrook (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Jerrold J. Ganzfried (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

John M. Landis (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Schneider Moving & Storage Co. v. Robbins

Tue, 21 Feb 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1860

Petitioner

Schneider Moving & Storage Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Robbins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 82-1862

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 364 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, February 21, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1984

Advocates

Charles W. Bobinette (on behalf of Prosser's Moving and Storage Co)

David F. Yates (on behalf of Schneider Moving and Storage Co)

Russell N. Luplow (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Limbach v. Hooven & Allison Co.

Wed, 22 Feb 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-96

Petitioner

Limbach

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hooven & Allison Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 353 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, February 22, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1984

Advocates

Michael Nims (on behalf of the Respondent)

Richard C. Farrin (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Limbach, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 2: Export-Import Clause

None

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart

Tue, 21 Feb 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1721

Petitioner

Seattle Times Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rhinehart

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 20 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, February 21, 1984

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1984

Advocates

Malcolm L. Edwards (on behalf of the Respondents)

Evan L. Schwab (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders

Wed, 21 Mar 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Location

The D&B Corporation

103 JFK Parkway Short Hills NJ 07078

Short Hills, NJ 07078

United States

40° 44' 22.02" N, 74° 19' 45.912" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-18

Petitioner

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Greenmoss Builders

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 749 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1984

Reargued:

Wednesday, October 3, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, June 26, 1985

Advocates

Gordon Lee Garrett (on behalf of Petitioner)

Thomas F. Heilmann (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

Dun and Bradstreet, a credit reporting agency, mistakenly reported to some of its subscribers that the construction contractor Greenmoss Builders had voluntarily filed for bankruptcy. The president of Greenmoss quickly learned about the erroneous report, requested Bradstreet to correct its error, and asked for the list of subscribers who received the report. Bradstreet refused to release the names on the list, but issued a correction to its five subscribers who received the original report. The correction stated that actually a former employee of Greenmoss had filed for bankruptcy and that Greenmoss Builders "continued in business as usual." Greenmoss was dissatisfied with the correction and again asked for the list. When Bradstreet refused a second time, Greenmoss filed suit against it for defamation in a Vermont state court. The court discovered that a 17-year-old high student interning for Bradstreet had caused the error and the jury awarded $350,000 to Greenmoss in compensatory and punitive damages. Bradstreet claimed that contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in Gertz v. Robert Welch, the trial judge told the jury that it could award punitive damages even if Bradford did not make mistakes intentionally or out of recklessness. The court granted Bradstreet's motion for retrial, but the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that Gertz only applied to cases involving defamation by the media.

Question

If a trial judge does not instruct the jury to only award punitive damages caused by intentional slander or reckless conduct, can a jury still award punitive damages to a plaintiff defamed by private speech?

Conclusion

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

Yes. Justice Lewis Powell authored the opinion for a 5-4 court. Although the trial court correctly perceived that the trial judge's instructions did not satisfy the requirements of Gertz, the Court held that Gertzdid not apply since the present case did not involve public speech. Instead the Court looked to apply the logic of Gertz to situations concerning private speech. The Court reasoned that laws regulating defamation suits aimed to "balance the State's interest in compensating private individuals for injury to their reputation against the First Amendment interest in protecting this type [Bradstreet's] of expression." Because the First Amendment offers less protection to private speech than to public speech, and especially less to speech "being solely motived by a desire for profit," damages caused by it can result in heavier penalties and broader conditions for convictions. Therefore states can allow the recovery of punitive damages in defamation cases involving private speech even when the perpetrator does not demonstrate "actual malice."

Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Vaughn

Mon, 19 Mar 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-2042

Petitioner

Westinghouse Electric Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Vaughn

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 521 (1984)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1984

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1984

Advocates

Clyde E. Murphy (on behalf of the Respondent)

James L. Moore (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Hoover v. Ronwin

Mon, 16 Jan 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1474

Petitioner

Hoover

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ronwin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 558 (1984)

Argued

Monday, January 16, 1984

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1984

Advocates

Edward Ronwin (on behalf of Respondent, pro se)

Charles R. Hoover (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace (as amicus curiae supporting respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Hayfield Northern R. Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Tr. Co.

Tue, 21 Feb 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1579

Appellee

Chicago & N. W. Tr. Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hayfield Northern R. Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 622 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, February 21, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, June 12, 1984

Advocates

Anne E. Keating (on behalf of the Appellee)

Mark I. Levy (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Robert S. Abdalian (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hayfield Northern R. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp.

Mon, 05 Dec 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-914

Petitioner

Monsanto Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Spray-Rite Service Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 752 (1984)

Argued

Monday, December 5, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, March 20, 1984

Advocates

Fred H. Bartlit, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

William F. Baxter (as amicus curiae)

Edward L. Foote (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Spray-Rite Service Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States

Wed, 22 Feb 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1994

Petitioner

Kirby Forest Industries, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 1 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, February 22, 1984

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1984

Advocates

Joe G. Roady (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Harriet S. Shapiro (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Kirby Forest Industries, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

United States v. Karo

Wed, 25 Apr 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Location

United States

35° 6' 57.5172" N, 106° 34' 34.7124" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-850

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

James Karo, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 705 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, April 25, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, July 3, 1984

Advocates

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of the petitioner)

Charles P. Roberts, III (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Defendants James Karo, Richard Horton, and William Harley ordered fifty gallons of ether from a government informant, to be used to extract cocaine from clothes imported into the United States. Carl Muehlenweg, the informant and owner of the ether, gave consent to the police to install a tracking device into one of the cans containing the ether before delivery to the defendants.

Question

Does the installation of a tracking device into a container, with the permission of the original owner, constitute a seizure within the meaning of the 4th Amendment when the container is delivered to a buyer having no knowledge of the tracking device?

Conclusion

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

No. The Court found that although the cans of ether may have contained an unknown and unwanted object, no meaningful interference with the defendants' interest in their possessions occurred, as the tracking device was installed before the defendants obtained the ether. This case was an expansion of the holding announced in United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). (Abstract by Blaine Schmidt.)

Dickman v. Commissioner

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1041

Petitioner

Dickman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Commissioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 330 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, November 1, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, February 21, 1984

Advocates

Frank P. Riggs (on behalf of Petitioners)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ins v. Phinpathya

Mon, 03 Oct 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-91

Petitioner

Ins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Phinpathya

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

464 U.S. 183 (1984)

Argued

Monday, October 3, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, January 10, 1984

Advocates

Elliott Schulder (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Bert D. Greenberg (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Ins, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

James v. Kentucky

Tue, 28 Feb 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-6840

Petitioner

James

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kentucky

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 341 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, February 28, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1984

Advocates

C. Thomas Hectus (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Penny R. Warren (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for James, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Icc v. American Trucking Assns., Inc.

Tue, 10 Jan 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1643

Petitioner

Icc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

American Trucking Assns., Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 354 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, January 10, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, June 5, 1984

Advocates

Patrick Mc Eligot (on behalf of the Respondents)

Carter G. Phillips (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Icc, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Motor Carrier

None

Blum v. Stenson

Wed, 11 Jan 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1374

Petitioner

Blum

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stenson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 886 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, March 21, 1984

Advocates

Leon Silverman (on behalf of the Respondents)

Melvyn R. Leventhal (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Patton v. Yount

Tue, 28 Feb 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-95

Petitioner

Patton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yount

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 1025 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, February 28, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, June 26, 1984

Advocates

F. Cortez Bell, III (on behalf of the Petitioners)

George E. Schumacher (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Patton, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 6: Other Sixth Amendment Provisions

None

Ins v. Stevic

Tue, 06 Dec 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-973

Petitioner

Ins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stevic

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 407 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, June 5, 1984

Advocates

Ann L. Ritter (on behalf of the Respondent)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.

Mon, 07 Nov 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-960

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

City Disposal Systems, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 822 (1984)

Argued

Monday, November 7, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, March 21, 1984

Advocates

Norton J. Come (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Robert P. Ufer (on behalf of 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

United States v. Yermian

Tue, 27 Mar 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-346

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yermian

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 63 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1984

Advocates

Carolyn F. Corwin (on behalf of Petitioner)

Stephen J. Hillman (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1001

None

Kosak v. United States

Mon, 07 Nov 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-618

Petitioner

Kosak

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 848 (1984)

Argued

Monday, November 7, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, March 21, 1984

Advocates

Jeffrey L. Naftulin (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Kathryn A. Oberly (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Tort Claims, or Alien Tort Statute

None

Burnett v. Grattan

Mon, 26 Mar 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-264

Petitioner

Burnett

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Grattan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 42 (1984)

Argued

Monday, March 26, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1984

Advocates

Paul Farrell Strain (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Sheldon H. Laskin (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Grattan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1981)

None

Ohio v. Johnson

Wed, 25 Apr 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-904

Petitioner

Ohio

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Johnson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 493 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, April 25, 1984

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1984

Advocates

Albert L. Purola (on behalf of the Respondent)

John E. Shoop (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Ohio, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Heckler v. Edwards

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-874

Petitioner

Heckler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Edwards

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 870 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, November 30, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, March 21, 1984

Advocates

Neal S. Dudovitz (on behalf of Respondents)

John H. Garvey (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Strickland v. Washington

Tue, 10 Jan 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida - Dade County

73 West Flagler Miami FL 33130

Miami, FL 33130

United States

25° 46' 28.5672" N, 80° 11' 42.5256" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1554

Petitioner

Strickland

Respondent

Washington

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 668 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, January 10, 1984

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1984

Advocates

Carolyn M. Snurkowski (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Richard E. Shapiro (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

David Washington pleaded guilty to murder in a Florida state court. At sentencing, his attorney did not seek out character witnesses or request a psychiatric evaluation. Subsequently, the trial court sentenced Mr. Washington to death finding no mitigating circumstances to rule otherwise. After exhausting his state court remedies, Mr. Strickland sought habeas corpus relief in a Florida federal district court. He argued that his Sixth Amendment right was violated because he had ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The district court denied the petition. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. The court held that the Sixth Amendment accorded criminal defendants a right to counsel rendering "reasonably effective assistance given the totality of the circumstances." It then remanded the case to the district court to apply this standard and determine whether Mr. Washington's counsel was sufficiently prejudicial to justify the reversal of his sentence.

Question

What standard should be applied to determine whether a convicted person's Sixth Amendment right to counsel has been violated so as to require reversal of a conviction or to set aside a death sentence?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Strickland, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

The Supreme Court held that: (1) counsel's performance must be deficient; and (2) the deficient performance must have prejudiced the defense so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. With Justice Sandra Day O'Connor writing for the majority, the Court counseled that in making a showing of deficient performance, the defendant must demonstrate that counsel's representation fell below an "objective standard of reasonableness." The Court also noted that to show prejudice, the defendant must show that there is a "reasonable probability" that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result would have been different. Here, the Court reasoned that Mr. Washington's counsel was not unreasonable. Moreover, the Court stated that even if counsel was unreasonable, counsel's conduct did not cause sufficient prejudice to Mr. Washington to warrant setting aside his death sentence.

Justice William J. Brennan wrote separately, concurring in part and dissenting in part. He viewed the death sentence as per se cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Consequently, he would not have upheld Mr. Washington's sentence. Justice Thurgood Marshall also wrote separately, dissenting. He disagreed with the majority's holding in that in its attempt to make a uniform standard, it created one so malleable as to be virtually useless.

EEOC v. Shell Oil Co.

Mon, 31 Oct 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-825

Petitioner

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shell Oil Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 54 (1984)

Argued

Monday, October 31, 1983

Decided

Monday, April 2, 1984

Advocates

Robert E. Williams (on behalf of the Respondent)

Richard G. Wilkins (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Regan v. Time, Inc.

Wed, 09 Nov 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-729

Appellee

Time, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Regan

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 641 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, November 9, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, July 3, 1984

Advocates

Elliott Schulder (on behalf of the Appellants)

Stuart M. Goll (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

Split Vote

None

United States v. Weber Aircraft Corp.

Wed, 11 Jan 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1616

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Weber Aircraft Corp.

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 792 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, March 20, 1984

Advocates

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

Jacques E. Soiret (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bernal v. Fainter

Wed, 28 Mar 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-630

Petitioner

Bernal

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fainter

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 216 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, March 28, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, May 30, 1984

Advocates

Mary F. Keller (on behalf of Respondents)

Cornish F. Hitchcock (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Segura v. United States

Wed, 09 Nov 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-5298

Petitioner

Segura

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 796 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, November 9, 1983

Decided

Thursday, July 5, 1984

Advocates

Peter J. Fabricant (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Tower v. Glover

Wed, 22 Feb 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1988

Petitioner

Tower

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Glover

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 914 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, February 22, 1984

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1984

Advocates

Craig K. Edwards (on behalf of respondent)

David B. Frohnmayer (on behalf of petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Heckler v. Day

Mon, 05 Dec 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1371

Petitioner

Heckler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Day

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 104 (1984)

Argued

Monday, December 5, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, May 22, 1984

Advocates

Richard H. Munzing (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Paul McGrath (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

J. Paul Mc Grath (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Title II of the Social Security Act (Act) establishes a four-step review process of disputed disability benefit claims. First, a state agency determines if a claimant has a disability and when the condition began or ended. Second, state agencies' disability determinations can be reviewed upon the claimant's request. Third, if upon review the claimant suffers an adverse finding he or she may demand an evidentiary hearing by an administrative law judge. Fourth, if a claimant is dissatisfied with the administrative law judge's decision, they may appeal to the Appeals Council of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Claiming delays in excess of 90 days, during steps two and three, Leon Day sued on behalf of several similarly aggrieved Vermont claimants alleging a violation of the "reasonable time" hearing limitation. On appeal from the Second Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling upholding a district court's imposition of disability hearing deadlines, the Supreme Court granted HHS Secretary Margaret Heckler certiorari.

Question

Does the judiciary's imposition of deadlines by which disability claims must be processed constitute an unconstitutional interference with a legislatively mandated statute?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Heckler, 4 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

Yes. In a 5-to-4 opinion, the Court held that Congress already considered and expressly rejected the imposition of mandatory disability dispute-resolution deadlines. Such deadlines, according to congressional reports, would subordinate quality of service to timeliness. The Court cautioned that pervasively regulated areas, such as the Social Security Act in general and its dispute resolution mechanisms in particular, should be left free of judicial intervention that is far less attuned to the needs of the constituencies served by such legislation.

United States v. Doe

Wed, 07 Dec 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-786

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Doe

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 605 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, December 7, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, February 28, 1984

Advocates

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

Richard T. Philips (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Doe, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Berkemer v. Mccarty

Wed, 18 Apr 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-710

Petitioner

Berkemer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mccarty

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 420 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1984

Decided

Monday, July 2, 1984

Advocates

R. William Meeks (on behalf of the Respondent)

Alan C. Travis (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Irving Independent School Dist. v. Tatro

Mon, 16 Apr 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-558

Petitioner

Irving Independent School Dist.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tatro

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 883 (1984)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1984

Decided

Thursday, July 5, 1984

Advocates

James C. Todd (on behalf of the Respondent)

James W. Deatherage (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Tatro, 0 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

Clark v. C.C.N.V.

Wed, 21 Mar 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1998

Petitioner

Clark

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

C.C.N.V.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 288 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1984

Decided

Friday, June 29, 1984

Advocates

Paul M. Bator (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Burt Neuborne (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

In 1982, the National Park Service issued a renewable permit to the Community for Creative Non-Violence to conduct a demonstration in Lafayette Park and the Mall in Washington, D.C. The C.C.N.V. demonstration was intended to represent the plight of the homeless, and the demonstrators wished to sleep in tent cities set up in the park. Citing anti-camping regulations, the Park Service denied the request.

Question

Did the National Park Service regulations violate the First Amendment by curtailing symbolic speech?

Conclusion

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

In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the regulations did not violate the First Amendment. The Court noted that expression is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, and that the manner of the protest was at odds with the government's interest in maintaining the condition of the parks. The Court argued that the Park Service did not attempt to ban all sleeping in public parks (only in certain areas), and that the protesters had alternative means of communicating their message.

Escambia County v. Mcmillan

Tue, 10 Jan 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1295

Appellee

Mcmillan

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Escambia County

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 48 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, January 10, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, March 27, 1984

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Leon

Tue, 17 Jan 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Residence of Leon

620 Price Drive Burbank CA 91504

Burbank, CA 91504

United States

34° 12' 12.0312" N, 118° 19' 35.4072" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1771

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Leon

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 897 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, January 17, 1984

Decided

Thursday, July 5, 1984

Advocates

Roger L. Cossack (Argued the cause for the respondents Stewart et al)

Barry Tarlow (Argued the cause for the respondent Leon)

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

Facts of the Case

The exclusionary rule requires that evidence illegally seized must be excluded from criminal trials. Leon was the target of police surveillance based on an anonymous informant's tip. The police applied to a judge for a search warrant of Leon's home based on the evidence from their surveillance. A judge issued the warrant and the police recovered large quantities of illegal drugs. Leon was indicted for violating federal drug laws. A judge concluded that the affadavit for the search warrant was insufficient; it did not establish the probable cause necessary to issue the warrant. Thus, the evidence obtained under the warrant could not be introduced at Leon's trial.

Question

Is there a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Exclusionary Rule (admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment)

Yes, there is such an exception. The justices held that evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant could be introduced at trial. The exclusionary rule, argued the majority, is not a right but a remedy justified by its ability to deter illegal police conduct. In Leon, the costs of the exclusionary rule outweighed the benefits. The exclusionary rule is costly to society: Guilty defendants go unpunished and people lose respect for the law. The benefits of the exclusionary rule are uncertain: The rule cannot deter police in a case like Leon, where they act in good faith on a warrant issued by a judge.

United States v. Mendoza

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-849

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mendoza

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

464 U.S. 154 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, November 2, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, January 10, 1984

Advocates

Donald L. Ungar (on behalf of Respondent)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Block v. Community Nutrition Institute

Tue, 24 Apr 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-458

Petitioner

Block

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Community Nutrition Institute

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 340 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, April 24, 1984

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1984

Advocates

Ronald L. Plesser (on behalf of of the Respondents)

Kathryn A. Oberly (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Block, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 7 U.S.C. 601

None

Chevron U.S. A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council

Wed, 29 Feb 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1005

Petitioner

Chevron U.S. A.

Respondent

Natural Res. Def. Council

Consolidation

No. 82-1247

No. 82-1591

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 837 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, February 29, 1984

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1984

Advocates

Paul M. Bator (on behalf of petitioner)

David D. Doniger (on behalf of respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Chevron U.S. A., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clean Air

None

Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.

Tue, 08 Nov 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-485

Petitioner

Keeton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hustler Magazine, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 770 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, November 8, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, March 20, 1984

Advocates

Stephen M. Shapiro (By invitation of the Court, argued the cause as amicus curiae in support of the judgment below)

Norman Roy Grutman (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Kathy Keeton (Keeton) sued Hustler Magazine, Inc. (Hustler) and several other defendants for libel in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Keeton alleged that the district court had jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship since she was a resident of New York and Hustler was an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in California. Hustler sold 10 to 15 thousand copies of its magazine in New Hampshire each month but Keeton's only connection to New Hampshire was the circulation there of copies of a magazine that she assisted in producing. She chose to sue in New Hampshire because it was the only state in which the statute of limitation for libel six years, the longest in the United States had not run. The district court dismissed the suit on the ground that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbade the application of New Hampshire's long-arm statute in order to acquire personal jurisdiction over Hustler. The First Circuit affirmed, finding that Keeton's contacts with New Hampshire were too attenuated for an assertion of personal jurisdiction over Hustler. The Court of Appeals also found the application of the "single publication rule," which would require the court to award Keeton damages caused in all states should she prevail, unfair since most of Keeton's alleged injuries occurred outside of New Hampshire.

Question

Was Hustler's circulation of magazines within the forum state of New Hampshire alone sufficient, without regard to the depth of plaintiff's contacts or the amount of plaintiff's damages caused in New Hampshire, to support an assertion of personal jurisdiction in a libel action based upon the contents of the magazine?

Conclusion

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

Yes. Hustler's regular circulation of magazines in New Hampshire is sufficient to support an assertion of personal jurisdiction in a libel action based on the contents of the magazine. In analyzing whether there are sufficient minimum contacts to permit personal jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment, a court should focus on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. Hustler has continuously and deliberately exploited the New Hampshire market and therefore it must reasonably anticipate being hauled into court there. Keeton did not need to have minimum contacts with the forum state in order for that state to have asserted personal jurisdiction over Hustler. New Hampshire had a sufficient interest in adjudicating the dispute. Moreover, even though most of the harm done to Keeton occurred outside New Hampshire, the same would be true in most libel cases brought anywhere other than plaintiff's state of domicile.

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff

Mon, 26 Mar 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Hawaii Public Housing Authority

1002 North School Street Honolulu HI 96817

Honolulu, HI 96817

United States

21° 19' 40.5372" N, 157° 51' 48.816" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-141

Petitioner

Midkiff

Respondent

Hawaii Housing Authority

Consolidation

No. 83-236

No. 83-283

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 229 (1984)

Argued

Monday, March 26, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, May 30, 1984

Advocates

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

Clinton R. Ashford (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

After extensive hearings in the mid-1960s, the Hawaii legislature discovered that while Federal and State governments owned nearly 49 percent of the land in Hawaii, another 47 percent was owned by only 72 private landowners. To combat this concentration of ownership, the legislature enacted the Land Reform Act of 1967. The Act adopted a method of redistribution in which title in real property could be taken from lessors and transferred to lessees. Frank E. Midkiff, a landholder, challenged the Act.

Question

Did the Land Reform Act of 1967 violate the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Hawaii Housing Authority, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Public Use Clause did not preclude Hawaii from taking title in real property, with just compensation, for the purpose of reducing the concentration of ownership. Noting that Hawaii's statute was rationally related to a conceivable public purpose, the Court argued that "debates over the wisdom of takings" were best carried out by legislatures, not by federal courts. The Court also held that the fact that the property taken by eminent domain was transferred to private beneficiaries did not condemn the law to having a solely private purpose.