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 Alberto 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

Alberto 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

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

Barry Tarlow (Argued the cause for the respondent Leon)

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

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.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. R. A. Gray & Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-245

Appellee

R. A. Gray & Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 83-291

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 717 (1984)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1984

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1984

Advocates

Thomas M. Triplett (on behalf of the Appellees)

Baruch A. Fellner (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

United States v. Varig Airlines

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1349

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Varig Airlines

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 82-1350

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 797 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, January 18, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, June 19, 1984

Advocates

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

Richard F. Gerry (Argued the cause for the respondents in both cases)

Facts of the Case

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 directs the Secretary of Transportation to "promote the safety of civil aircraft" by establishing minimum standards of airworthiness. Pursuant to this directive, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), acting as the Secretary's designee, instituted a certification process for the design and manufacture of all private aircraft. Under FAA rules, manufacturers are required to develop the plans and specifications and perform the inspections and tests necessary to establish that an aircraft design comports with the regulations. FAA engineers then conduct "spot-check" inspections of the manufacturer's work. This case arose out of two separate accidents in which commercial aircraft, certified by the FAA or its predecessor, caught fire mid-air, resulting in the deaths of most of the people on board one plane and all of the people on board the other. Each accident was found to have been caused by a faulty part a trash receptacle in one case; a gas burning cabin heater in the other which did not comply with FAA regulations. In both cases, plaintiffs sued the U.S. under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) on the ground that the FAA or its predecessor negligently issued certificates for the respective aircraft. The district court in the first case granted summary judgment on the ground, inter alia, that recovery against the U.S. was barred by 28 U.S.C. Section 2680(a), which provides a discretionary function exception to the FTCA. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the discretionary function exception did not apply, and that the U.S., just as a private party, could be held liable for negligent inspection under the California "Good Samaritan" rule. In the other case, the district court entered judgment for plaintiffs under the California "Good Samaritan" rule, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Question

Can the U.S. be held liable under the FTCA for the FAA's decision to use the "spot-check" program to monitor compliance with airworthiness certification standards?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Tort Claims, or Alien Tort Statute

No. Government liability under the FTCA is limited by the discretionary function exception of 28 U.S.C. Section 2680(a), which provides that the federal government may not be held liable for "[a]ny claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government . . . based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function . . . whether or not the discretion involved be abused." The FAA's decision to institute the "spot-check" program to monitor compliance with its minimum safety standards was clearly discretionary and protected by Section 2680(a). It was a calculated decision which took into account the objectives of the certification process in light of practical considerations such as funding and staffing. Judicial intervention in such a decision would be precisely what the discretionary function exception was designed to prevent.

Washington Metro. Transit Auth. v. Johnson

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-747

Petitioner

Washington Metro. Transit Auth.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Johnson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 925 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, April 24, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, June 26, 1984

Advocates

William F. Mulroney (on behalf of the respondents)

E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Washington Metro. Transit Auth., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation

None

Badaracco v. Commissioner

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1453

Petitioner

Badaracco

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Commissioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 82-1509

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

464 U.S. 386 (1984)

Argued

Monday, November 28, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, January 17, 1984

Advocates

Barry I. Fredericks (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Albert G. Lauber, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Russello v. United States

Wed, 05 Oct 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-472

Petitioner

Russello

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

464 U.S. 16 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, October 5, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, November 1, 1983

Advocates

Ronald A. Dion (on behalf of the Petitioner)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

None

Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-196

Appellee

Monsanto Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Ruckelshaus

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 986 (1984)

Argued

Monday, February 27, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, June 26, 1984

Advocates

A. Raymond Randolph (on behalf of Appellee)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Ruckelshaus, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

Furniture Moving Drivers v. Crowley

Mon, 09 Jan 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-432

Petitioner

Furniture Moving Drivers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Crowley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 526 (1984)

Argued

Monday, January 9, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, June 12, 1984

Advocates

Mark D. Stern (on behalf of the Respondents)

John H. Garvey (on behalf of the federal respondent in support of petitioners)

Gary S. Witlen (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Furniture Moving Drivers, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure

None

Silkwood v. Kerr-Mcgee Corp.

Tue, 04 Oct 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-2159

Appellee

Kerr-Mcgee Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Silkwood

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

464 U.S. 238 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, October 4, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, January 11, 1984

Advocates

C. Lee Cook, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellees)

Michael H. Gottesman (on behalf of the Appellant)

John H. Garvey (as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Silkwood, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1254

None

Aluminum Co. v. Central Lincoln Util. Dist.

Mon, 09 Jan 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1071

Petitioner

Aluminum Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Central Lincoln Util. Dist.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 380 (1984)

Argued

Monday, January 9, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, June 5, 1984

Advocates

M. Laurence Popofsky (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Jerrold J. Ganzfried (on behalf of federal respondent in support of Petitioners)

James T. Waldron (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Aluminum Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 16 U.S.C. 839

None

Mabry v. Johnson

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-328

Petitioner

Mabry

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Johnson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 504 (1984)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1984

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1984

Advocates

John Steven Clark (on behalf of the petitioner)

Richard Quiggle (appointed by this Court)

Jerrold J. Ganzfried (on behalf of the U.S. as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Tully

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-2394

Appellee

Tully

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Westinghouse Electric Corp.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 388 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, November 1, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, April 24, 1984

Advocates

Peter H. Schiff (on behalf of the Appellees)

Paul M. Dodyk (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Westinghouse Electric Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Michigan Canners & Freezers v. Agricultural Bd.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1577

Appellee

Agricultural Bd.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Michigan Canners & Freezers

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 461 (1984)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1984

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1984

Advocates

Joseph G. Scoville (on behalf of the appellants)

John H. Garvey (on behalf of U.S. as amicus curiae)

James A. White (on behalf of the appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Michigan Canners & Freezers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 7 U.S.C. 2301

None

Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank Of Richmond

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-185

Petitioner

Cooper

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Federal Reserve Bank Of Richmond

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 867 (1984)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1984

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1984

Advocates

Eric Schnapper (on behalf of petitioners)

Harriet S. Shapiro (on behalf of the U.S. and EEOC as amicus curiae)

George R. Hodges (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Cooper, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1981)

None

Board Of Education v. Vail

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-87

Petitioner

Board Of Education

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Vail

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 377 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, February 28, 1984

Decided

Monday, April 23, 1984

Advocates

Thomas J. Miller (on behalf of Petitioners)

Marc J. Ansel (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Securities Industry Assn. v. Board Of Governors

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-614

Petitioner

Securities Industry Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Board Of Governors

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 207 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, April 24, 1984

Decided

Thursday, June 28, 1984

Advocates

Carter G. Phillips (on behalf of Respondent)

James B. Weidner (on behalf of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Board Of Governors, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 1843

None

Smith v. Robinson

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-2120

Petitioner

Smith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Robinson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 992 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, March 28, 1984

Decided

Thursday, July 5, 1984

Advocates

E. Richard Larson (on behalf of Petitioners)

Forrest L. Avila (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Roberts v. United States Jaycees

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

Location

United States Jaycees

7447 S Lewis Ave Tulsa OK 74136

Tulsa, OK 74136

United States

36° 3' 22.4928" N, 95° 57' 28.0944" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-724

Appellee

United States Jaycees

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Roberts

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 609 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, July 3, 1984

Advocates

Richard L. Varco, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Carl D. Hall, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

According to its bylaws, membership in the United States Jaycees was limited to males between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five. Females and older males were limited to associate membership in which they were prevented from voting or holding local or national office. Two chapters of the Jaycees in Minnesota, contrary to the bylaws, admitted women as full members. When the national organization revoked the chapters' licenses, they filed a discrimination claim under a Minnesota anti-discrimination law. The national organization brought a lawsuit against Kathryn Roberts of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, who was responsible for the enforcement of the anti-discrimination law.

Question

Did Minnesota's attempts to enforce the anti-discrimination law violate the Jaycees' right to free association under the First Amendment?

Conclusion

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

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Jaycees chapters lacked "the distinctive characteristics that might afford constitutional protection to the decision of its members to exclude women." The Court reasoned that making women full members would not impose any serious burdens on the male members' freedom of expressive association. The Court thus held that Minnesota's compelling interest in eradicating discrimination against women justified enforcement of the state anti-discrimination law. The Court found that the Minnesota law was not aimed at the suppression of speech and did not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint.

South Carolina v. Regan

Wed, 05 Oct 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

94 ORIG

Plaintiff

South Carolina

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Regan

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 367 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, October 5, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, February 22, 1984

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (on behalf of the Defendant)

Susan Lee Voss (as amici curiae)

Huger Sinkler (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for South Carolina, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 26 U.S.C. 7421

None

Block v. Rutherford

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-317

Petitioner

Block

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rutherford

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 576 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, March 28, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, July 3, 1984

Advocates

Frederick R. Bennett (on behalf of Petitioners)

Alvin J. Bronstein (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-945

Petitioner

Sure-Tan, 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

467 U.S. 883 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1983

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1984

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Respondent)

Michael R. Flaherty (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for NLRB, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

INS v. Lopez-Mendoza

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-491

Petitioner

INS

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lopez-Mendoza

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 1032 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1984

Decided

Thursday, July 5, 1984

Advocates

Mary L. Heen (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Andrew L. Frey (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Respondents Adan Lopez-Mendoza and Elias Sandoval-Sanchez, both Mexican citizens, were ordered deported by an immigration judge in separate proceedings. The orders were issued based upon each respondent's admission to Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officials that he had entered the country unlawfully. Lopez-Mendoza and Sandoval-Sanchez challenged the orders on grounds that their respective arrests by INS officials were illegal and in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Sandoval-Sanchez further moved to have his admission suppressed as fruit of an illegal arrest. (Lopez-Mendoza did not move to strike his admission from the record.) In each case, the presiding judge found the legality of the arrests irrelevant to the determination of the respondents' deportation status. On administrative appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the orders noting that deportation proceedings are civil actions and "[t]he mere fact of an illegal arrest has no bearing on a subsequent deportation hearing." The BIA also found application of the exclusionary rule in a deportation proceeding inappropriate. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed finding the respondents' arrests were illegal and the resulting admissions fruit of unlawful arrests.

Question

Do the strictures of the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule apply in deportation proceedings?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for INS, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Exclusionary Rule (admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment)

No. In both criminal and civil proceedings, the "body" or identity of a defendant is never suppressible as fruit of an illegal arrest. This alone was sufficient basis to uphold Lopez-Mendoza's deportation order. Moreover, deportation proceedings are civil actions and the protections afforded defendants in the criminal context do not apply. Specifically, Sandoval- Sanchez's appeal to the exclusionary rule in his motion to suppress his admission fails because the purpose the exclusionary rule is designed to servedeterring official misconductis not served in the context of a deportation proceeding. First, the INS is only required to show identity and alienage to meet its burden in a deportation hearing. Since the defendant's body is not suppressible, the INS must only prove alienage, generally not a difficult task even absent a confession. Further, INS has its own comprehensive oversight program in place to monitor Fourth Amendment compliance internally. The exclusionary rule would do little to enhance these efforts. Finally, deportations hearings, unlike criminal trials, are designed to prevent the continued violation of the law. The social cost of releasing a defendant whose mere presence in the country puts him in continued violation of the law is too high to bear in light of the minimal benefits derived from application of the exclusionary rule in this context.

Dixson v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-5279

Petitioner

Dixson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 82-5331

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 482 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, October 12, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, February 22, 1984

Advocates

Donald V. Morano (on behalf of the Petitioners, appointed by this Court)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 201

None

Calder v. Jones

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1401

Petitioner

Calder

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jones

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 783 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, November 8, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, March 20, 1984

Advocates

John G. Kester (on behalf of the Appellant)

Paul S. Ablon (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Rodgers

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-620

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rodgers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 475 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1984

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1984

Advocates

Barbara E. Etkind (on behalf of Petitioner)

Albert N. Moskowitz (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1001

None

Regan v. Wald

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-436

Petitioner

Regan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wald

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 222 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, April 24, 1984

Decided

Thursday, June 28, 1984

Advocates

Paul M. Bator (on behalf of Petitioners)

Leonard B. Boudin (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Regan, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 50 U.S.C. App.

None

Koehler v. Engle

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1

Petitioner

Koehler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Engle

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 1 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, February 28, 1984

Decided

Monday, March 26, 1984

Advocates

Louis J. Caruso (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John Nussbaumer (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court Of Cal.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-556

Petitioner

Press-Enterprise Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Superior Court Of Cal.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

464 U.S. 501 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, October 12, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, January 18, 1984

Advocates

Glenn Robert Salter (on behalf of the Respondent)

James D. Ward (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Welsh v. Wisconsin

Wed, 05 Oct 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-5466

Petitioner

Welsh

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wisconsin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 740 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, October 5, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, May 15, 1984

Advocates

Gordon B. Baldwin (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Stephen W. Kleinmaier (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Welsh, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Mcdonald v. West Branch

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-219

Petitioner

Mcdonald

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

West Branch

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 284 (1984)

Argued

Monday, February 27, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1984

Advocates

Richard W. Smith (on behalf of the Respondent)

David J. Achtenberg (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. FLRA

Tue, 11 Oct 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-799

Petitioner

Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Federal Labor Relations Authority

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

464 U.S. 89 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, October 11, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, November 29, 1983

Advocates

Carolyn F. Corwin (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Ruth E. Peters (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 7131

None

United States v. Gouveia

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-128

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gouveia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 180 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1984

Advocates

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of petitioner)

Charles P. Diamond (on behalf of respondents)

Joel Levine (on behalf of respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1246

Petitioner

Bose Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Consumers Union of U.S., Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 485 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, November 8, 1983

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1984

Advocates

Michael N. Pollet (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Charles Hieken (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Bose Corporation, a loudspeaker manufacturer, brought a product disparagement action against Consumer Union for publishing a negative review of Bose products. Among other comments, Consumer Union's article mistakenly said that Bose loudspeakers caused sounds of individual musical instruments to wander "about the room" when they in fact merely wondered "along the wall[s]." Ruling in favor of Bose, the District Court found that the article's statements were factually wrong and made with "actual malice." On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed as it found the lower court's ruling to be clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court granted Bose certiorari.

Question

Was Consumer Union's article written with "actual malice," thereby placing it outside the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

No. The Court held that while the record revealed that the article's author mistakenly described the sound path of Bose speakers, he did not do so with actual malice. A review of the author's testimony showed that he heard the Bose speaker sounds as tending to wander "along the wall" between speakers, rather then "about the room." Despite this disparity, the Court held that the description of Bose speaker sounds as wondering "about the room," though a misconception, was not written with actual malice since its author was not aware of his mischaracterization in time to remedy the error. Therefore, his speech was entitled to First Amendment protection.

United States v. One Assortment Of 89 Firearms

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1047

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

One Assortment Of 89 Firearms

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 354 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, November 30, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, February 22, 1984

Advocates

Herbert W. Louthian (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 United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

United States v. Cronic

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-660

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cronic

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 648 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, January 10, 1984

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1984

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Steven B. Duke (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

South-Central Timber Dev. v. Wunnicke

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1608

Petitioner

South-Central Timber Dev.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wunnicke

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 82 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, February 29, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, May 22, 1984

Advocates

Kathryn A. Obery (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

LeRoy Eugene DeVeaux (on behalf of Petitioner)

Ronald W. Lorensen (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for South-Central Timber Dev., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

United States v. Lorenzetti

Mon, 23 Apr 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-838

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lorenzetti

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 167 (1984)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1984

Advocates

Carolyn F. Corwin (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Charles Sovel (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Employees' Compensation

None

Massachusetts v. Sheppard

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

Location

Roxbury neighborhood Boston, MA

United States

42° 19' 30" N, 71° 5' 43.0008" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-963

Petitioner

Massachusetts

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Osborne Sheppard

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 981 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, January 17, 1984

Decided

Thursday, July 5, 1984

Advocates

Barbara A. H. Smith (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John Reinstein (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

Boston police sought to obtain a warrant to search the home of Osborne Sheppard, a suspected murderer. Detective Peter O'Malley prepared an affidavit listing the pieces of evidence he hoped to find at Sheppard's home. Since the local court was closed for the weekend and O'Malley could not find a new warrant form, he filled out a previously used form instead. He took this form and the affidavit to the residence of the presiding judge and told him the form required revision and approval. The judge returned the form with his approval, but he did not list the pieces of evidence from the affidavit on the warrant. Police found items from the affidavit in Sheppard's home and charged him with first-degree murder. During Sheppard's trial, the judge stated that the warrant did not conform to Fourth Amendment standards because it did not describe the items to be seized. Because the police acted in good faith upon what they believed was a valid warrant, the judge admitted the items as evidence and Sheppard was convicted. On appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Sheppard successfully argued that the trial judge should have suppressed the evidence since no "good-faith exception" existed for admitting evidence obtained on a faulty warrant.

Question

If police officers mistakenly believe they have obtained a valid warrant, can a trial court use the evidence they obtained?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Massachusetts, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Exclusionary Rule (admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment)

Yes. Justice Byron White delivered the opinion for a 7-2 court. The Court maintained that trial courts can use evidence seized by officers who have an "objectively reasonable basis" for mistakenly believing they have obtained valid warrants. Upon a factual inquiry, the Court found that "the officers in this case took every step that could reasonably be expected of them" to secure a valid warrant. Lawmakers did not enact rules for excluding evidence to invalidate evidence because of clerical errors by judges but to deter police from conducting unlawful searches.

Davis v. Scherer

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-490

Appellee

Scherer

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Davis

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 183 (1984)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1984

Decided

Thursday, June 28, 1984

Advocates

Bruce S. Rogow (on behalf of the Appellee)

Mitchell D. Franks (on behalf of the Appellants)

Richard G. Wilkins (as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Brown v. Hotel Employees

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-498

Appellee

Hotel Employees

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Brown

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 83-573

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 491 (1984)

Argued

Monday, March 26, 1984

Decided

Monday, July 2, 1984

Advocates

Anthony J. Parrillo ()

Laurence E. Gold ()

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Brown, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

United States v. Arthur Young & Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-687

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arthur Young & Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 805 (1984)

Argued

Monday, January 16, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, March 21, 1984

Advocates

William Eldred Jackson (on behalf of Respondent Amerada Hess Corporation)

Carl D. Liggio (on behalf of Respondent Arthur Young & Company)

Mark I. Levy (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ellis v. Railway Clerks

Mon, 09 Jan 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1150

Petitioner

Ellis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Railway Clerks

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 435 (1984)

Argued

Monday, January 9, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, April 25, 1984

Advocates

Michael E. Merrill (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Laurence E. Gold (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Ellis, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Railway Labor

None

Spaziano v. Florida

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-5596

Petitioner

Spaziano

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 447 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, April 17, 1984

Decided

Monday, July 2, 1984

Advocates

Craig S. Barnard (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Mark C. Menser (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

SEC v. O'Brien

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-751

Petitioner

Securities and Exchange Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jerry T. O'Brien, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 735 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, April 17, 1984

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1984

Advocates

William D. Symmes (on behalf of the Respondents)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Thigpen v. Roberts

Mon, 23 Apr 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1330

Petitioner

Thigpen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Roberts

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 27 (1984)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1984

Advocates

Rhesa H. Barksdale (as amicus curiae in support of judgment below)

William S. Boyd, III (on behalf of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Morton

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-916

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Morton

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 822 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, April 25, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, June 19, 1984

Advocates

Kaletah N. Carroll (on behalf of the respondent)

Michael W. Mc Connell (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: 42 U.S.C. 659

None

New York v. Quarles

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

Location

A&P supermarket

Francis Lewis Boulevard Queens NY

Queens, NY

United States

40° 43' 28.7436" N, 73° 45' 53.4168" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1213

Petitioner

New York

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Quarles

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 649 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, January 18, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, June 12, 1984

Advocates

Steven J. Rappaport (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

David A. Strauss (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Steven J. Hyman (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

After receiving the description of Quarles, an alleged assailant, a police officer entered a supermarket, spotted him, and ordered him to stop. Quarles stopped and was frisked by the officer. Upon detecting an empty shoulder holster, the officer asked Quarles where his gun was. Quarles responded. The officer then formally arrested Quarles and read him his Miranda rights.

Question

Should the Court suppress Quarles's statement about the gun and the gun itself because the officer had failed at the time to read Quarles his Miranda rights?

Conclusion

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

No. The Court held that there is a "public safety" exception to the requirement that officers issue Miranda warnings to suspects. Since the police officer's request for the location of the gun was prompted by an immediate interest in assuring that it did not injure an innocent bystander or fall into the hands of a potential accomplice to Quarles, his failure to read the Miranda warning did not violate the Constitution.

Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia v. Hall

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1127

Petitioner

Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hall

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 408 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, November 8, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, April 24, 1984

Advocates

George E. Pletcher (on behalf of the Respondent)

Thomas J. Whalen (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1795

Petitioner

Capital Cities Cable, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Crisp

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 691 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, February 21, 1984

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1984

Advocates

Michael W. Mc Connell (on behalf of the FCC as amicus curiae, pro hac vice)

Michael W. McConnell (Argued the cause pro hac vice for the Federal Communications Commission as amicus curiae in support of the petitioners)

Robert L. McDonald (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Brent N. Rushforth (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Robert L. Mc Donald (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

In 1980, Oklahoma's Attorney General determined that the re-broadcasting of out-of-state alcoholic beverage commercials by Oklahoma cable television stations violated the State's ban against advertising alcoholic beverages. Richard Crisp, the Director of Oklahoma's Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, warned the offending cable operators that their continued transmission of banned beverage commercials would result in criminal prosecution. In response, and on behalf of other cable operators, Capital Cities Cable challenged the constitutionality of Oklahoma's advertising ban. On appeal from the Tenth Circuit's reversal of a district court decision favoring Capital Cities Cable, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question

Did Oklahoma's ban against retransmitting out-of-state cable signals containing alcoholic beverage commercials violate the Supremacy or Commerce Clauses?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Capital Cities Cable, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Communication Act of 1934

The Court held unanimously that Oklahoma's ban on local cable transmissions of out-of-state alcoholic beverage commercials violated both the Supremacy and Commerce Clauses. While Oklahoma can regulate local cable aspects, such as franchise formation and construction, it cannot tamper with the flow of information from other states. Such tampering violates the Federal Communication Commission's guidelines prohibiting the censorship or alteration of interstate broadcast signals. As such, in the interest of maintaining diverse program offerings and encouraging competition among cable providers, the FCC's guidelines supercede Oklahoma's local regulatory authority. Moreover, despite its broad power under the Twenty-first Amendment to regulate the importation and use of intoxicating liquor, the Court held that the federal government retains final authority under the commerce clause to regulate all aspects of interstate liquor commerce. Therefore, Oklahoma's continued ban on interstate alcoholic advertising violated the Commerce Clause.

Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Darrone

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-862

Petitioner

Consolidated Rail Corporation

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Darrone

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 624 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, November 29, 1983

Decided

Friday, February 24, 1984

Advocates

Harry A. Rissetto (on behalf of the Petitioner)

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

Joseph P. Lenahan (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Securities Industry Assn. v. Board Of Governors

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1766

Petitioner

Securities Industry Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Board Of Governors

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 137 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1984

Decided

Thursday, June 28, 1984

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (on behalf of Respondents)

Harvey L. Pitt (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Securities Industry Assn., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 24

None

Norfolk Redev. & Housing Auth. v. C. & P. Tel.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-2332

Petitioner

Norfolk Redev. & Housing Auth.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

C. & P. Tel.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

464 U.S. 30 (1983)

Argued

Monday, October 3, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, November 1, 1983

Advocates

Francis N. Crenshaw (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Joseph L. Kelly (on behalf of Respondent)

Joshua I. Schwartz (on behalf of federal respondent in support of petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Norfolk Redev. & Housing Auth., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 42 U.S.C. 4601

None

FCC v. ITT World Communications, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-371

Petitioner

Federal Communications Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

ITT World Communications, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 463 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1984

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1984

Advocates

Grant S. Lewis (on behalf of Respondents)

Albert G. Lauber, Jr. (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Minnesota v. Murphy

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-827

Petitioner

Minnesota

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Murphy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 420 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, October 12, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, February 22, 1984

Advocates

David A. Strauss (on behalf of U.S. as amicus curiae)

Robert H. Lynn (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Mark S. Wernick (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Michigan v. Clifford

Wed, 05 Oct 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-357

Petitioner

Michigan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Clifford

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

464 U.S. 287 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, October 5, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, January 11, 1984

Advocates

Janice M. Joyce Bartee (on behalf of Petitioner)

K. Preston Oade, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Authority

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

Location

San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority San Antonio, TX

United States

29° 25' 26.8392" N, 98° 29' 37.0608" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1913

Appellee

San Antonio Metro. Transit Authority

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Garcia

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

Donovan v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Authority, No. 82-1951

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 528 (1985)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1984

Reargued:

Monday, October 1, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, February 19, 1985

Advocates

William T. Coleman, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Theodore B. Olson (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Laurence E. Gold (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Rex E. Lee (Reargued the cause for appellant, Donovan, in No. 82-1951)

Facts of the Case

The San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (SAMTA), the main provider of transportation in the San Antonio metropolitan area, claimed it was exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. SAMTA argued that it was providing a "traditional" governmental function, which exempted it from federal controls according to the doctrine of federalism established in National League of Cities v. Usery (1976). Joe G. Garcia, an employee of SAMTA, brought suit for overtime pay under Fair Labor Standards Act.

Question

Did principles of federalism make the San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority immune from the Fair Labor Standards Act?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Garcia, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the guiding principles of federalism established in National League of Cities v. Usery were unworkable and that SAMTA was subject to Congressional legislation under the Commerce Clause. The Court found that rules based on the subjective determination of "integral" or "traditional" governmental functions provided little or no guidance in determining the boundaries of federal and state power. The Court argued that the structure of the federal system itself, rather than any "discrete limitations" on federal authority, protected state sovereignty.

Heckler v. Matthews

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1050

Appellee

Matthews

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Heckler

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 728 (1984)

Argued

Monday, December 5, 1983

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1984

Advocates

John R. Benn (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Mark I. Levy (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Facts of the Case

Congress responded to the Court's decision in Califano v. Goldfarb (1977), which invalidated a gender-based dependency requirement in the allocation of Social Security payments, and to the necessity of preventing bankruptcy in the Social Security fund. It enacted amendments in 1977 to the Social Security Act. The 1977 amendments included a "pension offset" provision which reduced spousal benefits by the amount of certain federal and state pension funds that a Social Security applicant received. However, Congress exempted from this provision spouses who were eligible to receive pension benefits prior to December 1982 and who would have qualified for unreduced spousal benefits prior to the Court's Califano decision.

Question

Did the resurrection of pre-California law which allowed some gender-based classification in Social Security allocations violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Heckler, 0 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

The unanimous Court upheld the law. Justice Brennan granted that the 1977 amendments temporarily revived gender-based eligibility requirements, but maintained that they served a legitimate government interest, namely, they protected individuals who had planned for their retirements relying on the law as it stood before the Court's Califano decision. The resurrected eligibility criteria were narrowly drawn, applying to those individuals who were eligible for spousal benefits prior to 1977 who retired by 1982. Since many individuals who are planning for retirement rely on the law in making investment and spending decisions, changing the law (as Califano did) without giving some leeway to people who had already planned for the future would place an unreasonable burden on many who were close to retirement.

Mckaskle v. Wiggins

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1135

Petitioner

Mckaskle

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wiggins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 168 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, November 9, 1983

Decided

Monday, January 23, 1984

Advocates

Leslie A. Benitez (on behalf of Petitioner)

Craig Smyser (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mckaskle, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Hishon v. King & Spalding

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-940

Petitioner

Hishon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

King & Spalding

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 69 (1984)

Argued

Monday, October 31, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, May 22, 1984

Advocates

Emmit J. Bondurant, II (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Paul M. Bator (as amicus curiae)

Charles Morgan, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Jacobsen

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1167

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jacobsen

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 109 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, December 7, 1983

Decided

Monday, April 2, 1984

Advocates

Mark W. Peterson (on behalf of the Respondents)

David A. Strauss (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ncaa v. Board Of Regents Of Univ. Of Okla.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-271

Petitioner

Ncaa v. Board Of Regents Of Uni

Respondent

Of Okla.

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 85 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1984

Advocates

Frank H. Easterbrook (on behalf of Petitioners)

Andy Coats (on behalf of Respondents)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Of Okla., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Wasman v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-173

Petitioner

Wasman

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. 559 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, July 3, 1984

Advocates

Jay R. Moscowitz (on behalf of petitioner)

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Arizona v. Rumsey

Mon, 23 Apr 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-226

Petitioner

Arizona

Respondent

Rumsey

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 203 (1984)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1984

Advocates

James R. Rummage (on behalf of the Respondent)

William J. Schafer III (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Solem v. Bartlett

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1253

Petitioner

Solem

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bartlett

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 463 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, December 7, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, February 22, 1984

Advocates

Mark V. Meierhenry (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Tom D. Tobin (on behalf of the amici curiae)

Arlinda F. Locklear (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bartlett, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 35 Stat. 460

None

Colorado v. New Mexico

Mon, 09 Jan 1984 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

467 U.S. 310 (1984)

Argued

Monday, January 9, 1984

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1984

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: 8 votes for New Mexico, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

City Council v. Taxpayers For Vincent

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-975

Appellee

Taxpayers For Vincent

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

City Council

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 789 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, October 12, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, May 15, 1984

Advocates

Wayne S. Canterbury (on behalf of the Appellees)

Anthony Saul Alperin (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Justices Of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1479

Petitioner

Justices Of Boston Municipal Court

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lydon

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 294 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1984

Advocates

David Rossman (on behalf of the Respondent)

Barbara A. H. Smith (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Justices Of Boston Municipal Court, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Palmore v. Sidoti

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

Location

Circuit Court for Hillsborough County

800 Twiggs Street Tampa FL 33602

Tampa, FL 33602

United States

27° 57' 3.1536" N, 82° 27' 15.3144" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1734

Petitioner

Palmore

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sidoti

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 429 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, February 22, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, April 24, 1984

Advocates

Robert J. Shapiro (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

John E. Hawtrey (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Anthony and Linda Sidoti, both Caucasians, were divorced and Linda was awarded custody of their daughter. One year later, Anthony sought custody of the child after Linda began cohabitating with Clarence Palmore, an African-American. The Florida courts awarded Mr. Sidoti custody of the child, arguing that the child would be more vulnerable to social stigmatization in a racially mixed household. No evidence was introduced that indicated Ms. Sidoti was unfit to continue the custody of the child.

Question

Did the removal of the child from Linda Sidoti's custody violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that while ethnic prejudices did exist in society, those private biases were not permissible considerations for the removal of an infant child from the custody of its mother. "Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect." The Court thus held that the decision of the lower courts was an unconstitutional denial of rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco

Tue, 11 Oct 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-818

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bildisco & Bildisco

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 82-852

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 513 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, October 11, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, February 22, 1984

Advocates

Jack M. Zackin (on behalf of Bildisco and Bildisco)

James R. Zazzali (on behalf of Local 408, IBT, etc)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the NLRB)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Bildisco & Bildisco, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Solem v. Stumes

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-2149

Petitioner

Solem

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stumes

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 638 (1984)

Argued

Monday, November 28, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, February 29, 1984

Advocates

Mark V. Meierhenry (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Timothy J. Mc Greevy (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Solem, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Armco Inc. v. Hardesty

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-297

Appellee

Hardesty

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Armco Inc.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 638 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, April 17, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, June 12, 1984

Advocates

Robert Digges, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellee)

Richard R. Dailey (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Pulliam v. Allen

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1432

Petitioner

Pulliam

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Allen

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 522 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, November 2, 1983

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1984

Advocates

Gerald L. Baliles (on behalf of Petitioner)

Deborah C. Wyatt (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Reed v. Ross

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-218

Petitioner

Reed

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ross

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 1 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1984

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (as amicus curiae)

Barry Nakell (on behalf of the Respondent)

Richard N. League (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ins v. Delgado

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1271

Petitioner

Ins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Delgado

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 210 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1984

Advocates

Henry R. Fenton (on behalf of Respondent)

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lynch v. Donnelly

Tue, 04 Oct 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Shopping District Pawtucket, RI

United States

41° 52' 43.3596" N, 71° 22' 57.2016" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1256

Petitioner

Lynch

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Donnelly

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 668 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, October 4, 1983

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1984

Advocates

William F. Mc Mahon (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Amato A. De Luca (on behalf of the Respondents)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

The city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, annually erected a Christmas display located in the city's shopping district. The display included such objects as a Santa Claus house, a Christmas tree, a banner reading "Seasons Greetings," and a nativity scene. The creche had been included in the display for over 40 years. Daniel Donnelly objected to the display and took action against Dennis Lynch, the Mayor of Pawtucket.

Question

Did the inclusion of a nativity scene in the city's display violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

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

No. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that notwithstanding the religious significance of the creche, the city had not violated the Establishment Clause. The Court found that the display, viewed in the context of the holiday season, was not a purposeful or surreptitious effort to advocate a particular religious message. The Court found that the display merely depicted the historical origins of the Holiday and had "legitimate secular purposes." The Court held that the symbols posed no danger of establishing a state church and that it was "far too late in the day to impose a crabbed reading of the [Establishment] Clause on the country."

Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-629

Petitioner

Three Affiliated Tribes

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wold Engineering

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 138 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, November 29, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1984

Advocates

Raymond Cross (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Hugh Mc Cutcheon (on behalf of the Respondent)

Louis F. Claiborne (on behalf of the U.S. as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Three Affiliated Tribes, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1360

None

Grove City College v. Bell

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

Location

Grove City College

100 Campus Drive Grove City PA 16127

Grove City, PA 16127

United States

41° 9' 18.8352" N, 80° 5' 3.372" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-792

Petitioner

Grove City College

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 555 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, November 29, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, February 28, 1984

Advocates

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

David M. Lascell (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Grove City College, a private, coeducational liberal arts school, sought to preserve its institutional autonomy by consistently refusing state and federal financial assistance. The College did, however, enroll a large number of students who received Basic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOG's) through a Department of Education-run program. The DOE concluded that this assistance to students qualified the College as a recipient of federal assistance and made it subject to the nondiscrimination requirements of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. When the College refused to comply with the requirements, the DOE attempted to terminate assistance to the student financial aid program. The College challenged the DOE's actions.

Question

Was Grove City College subject to federal requirements because its students received federal grants? Did the provisions of Title IX violate the First Amendments rights of the College?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Bell, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Education Amendments of 1972

The Court held that there was no "substantive difference" between institutional assistance and aid received by a school through its students; Title IX coverage, the Court found, was triggered by the BEOG's. The Court noted that the assistance did not trigger institutionwide coverage under the Amendments, however. Only the College's financial aid program was subject to the federal requirements. The Court concluded that prohibiting discrimination as a condition for federal assistance did not infringe upon the First Amendment rights of the College and that the school was free to end its participation in the grant program.

Escondido Mut. Water Co. v. La Jolla Indians

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-2056

Petitioner

Escondido Mut. Water Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

La Jolla Indians

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 765 (1984)

Argued

Monday, March 26, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, May 15, 1984

Advocates

Paul D. Engstrand (on behalf of the petitioners)

Robert S. Pelcyger (on behalf of the respondent Mission Indian Bands)

Elliott Schulder (on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior)

Jerome M. Feit (on behalf of FERC)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Escondido Mut. Water Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Power

None

Commissioner v. Engle

Tue, 11 Oct 1983 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-599

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Engle

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 82-774

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

464 U.S. 206 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, October 11, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, January 10, 1984

Advocates

Marvin K. Collie (on behalf of the Petitioner, Farmar, et al)

Carter G. Phillips (on behalf of the Petitioner, Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Respondent, United States)

Thomas J. Donnelly (on behalf of the Respondent, Engle, et ux)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Engle, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Mccain v. Lybrand

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-282

Appellee

Lybrand

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mccain

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 236 (1984)

Argued

Monday, October 31, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, February 21, 1984

Advocates

Barbara E. Etkind (as Amicus Curiae)

Laughlin McDonald (on behalf of the Appellants)

Karen LeCraft Henderson (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mccain, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

None

Summa Corp. v. California Ex Rel. Lands Comm'n

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-708

Petitioner

Summa Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California Ex Rel. Lands Comm'n

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 198 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, February 29, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1984

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (on behalf of the U.S. as amicus curiae)

Warren M. Christopher (on behalf of the petitioner)

Nancy Alvarado Saggese (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Summa Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Franchise Tax Board Of California v. Usps

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-372

Appellee

Usps

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Franchise Tax Board Of California

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 512 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, April 17, 1984

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1984

Advocates

Patti S. Kitching (on behalf of the Appellant)

David A. Strauss (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Franchise Tax Board Of California, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 39 U.S.C. 401

None

United States v. Stauffer Chemical Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1448

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stauffer Chemical Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

464 U.S. 165 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, November 2, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, January 10, 1984

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (on behalf of Petitioner)

Charles F. Lettow (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

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

Location

Piscataway High School

100 Behmer Rd Piscataway NJ 08854

Piscataway, NJ 08854

United States

40° 32' 52.188" N, 74° 28' 32.0592" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-712

Petitioner

New Jersey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

T.L.O.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 325 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, March 28, 1984

Reargued:

Tuesday, October 2, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, January 15, 1985

Advocates

Allan J. Nodes (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Lois De Julio (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Allan J. Jones (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lois DeJulio (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

T.L.O. was a fourteen-year-old; she was accused of smoking in the girls' bathroom of her high school. A principal at the school questioned her and searched her purse, yielding a bag of marijuana and other drug paraphernalia.

Question

Did the search violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

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

No. Citing the peculiarities associated with searches on school grounds, the Court abandoned its requirement that searches be conducted only when a "probable cause" exists that an individual has violated the law. The Court used a less strict standard of "reasonableness" to conclude that the search did not violate the Constitution. The presence of rolling papers in the purse gave rise to a reasonable suspicion in the principal's mind that T.L.O. may have been carrying drugs, thus, justifying a more thorough search of the purse.

Oliver v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-15

Petitioner

Oliver

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 82-1273

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 170 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, November 9, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1984

Advocates

Donna L. Zeegers (on behalf of the Respondent Thornton)

Wayne S. Moss (on behalf of the Petitioner Maine)

Frank E. Haddad, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner Oliver)

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of the Respondent United States)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Flanagan v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-374

Petitioner

Flanagan

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. 259 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, November 30, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, February 21, 1984

Advocates

Edward H. Rubenstone (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Flanagan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

Selective Service System v. Minn. Pub. Int.

Mon, 23 Apr 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-276

Appellee

Minn. Pub. Int.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Selective Service System

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 841 (1984)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1984

Decided

Thursday, July 5, 1984

Advocates

William J. Keppel (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Rex E. Lee (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

Part of the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1983 denied federal financial aid to males between the ages of 18 and 26 who had failed to register for selective service. Applicants for financial aid were required to inform their universities that they had (or had not) registered for the draft.

Question

Did compelling individuals to state whether or not they had registered violate the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Selective Service System, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

The Court upheld the law. Since no student is compelled to seek financial aid, requiring an applicant to state whether or not he had registered for the draft would not be equivalent to forcing an individual to incriminate himself.