Cases - 1984 term

Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion

Mon, 29 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-703

Petitioner

Florida Power & Light Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lorion

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 83-1031

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 729 (1985)

Argued

Monday, October 29, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, March 20, 1985

Advocates

Charles A. Rothfeld (on behalf of the petitioners in 83-1031, pro hac)

Harold F. Reis (on behalf of the petitioners in 83-703)

Martin H. Hodder (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Florida Power & Light Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2342

None

Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Products Co.

Tue, 26 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-497

Appellee

Union Carbide Agric. Products Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Thomas

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 568 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, March 26, 1985

Decided

Monday, July 1, 1985

Advocates

Kenneth Ward Weinstein (on behalf of the Appellees)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Walters v. Nat. Assn. Of Radiation Survivors

Wed, 27 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-571

Appellee

Nat. Assn. Of Radiation Survivors

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Walters

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 305 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, March 27, 1985

Decided

Friday, June 28, 1985

Advocates

Gordon Paul Erspamer (on behalf of the Appellees)

Mark I. Levy (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Walters, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1252

None

Ramirez v. Indiana

Tue, 19 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-5059

Petitioner

Ramirez

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Indiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 147 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, March 19, 1985

Decided

Monday, April 1, 1985

Advocates

Kenneth F. Ripple (on behalf of the Petitioner)

William E. Daily (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ponte v. Real

Wed, 09 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1329

Petitioner

Ponte

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Real

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 491 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, January 9, 1985

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1985

Advocates

Jonathan Shapiro (on behalf of the Respondent)

Martin E. Levin (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Ponte, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Cleburne, TX v. Cleburne Living Center

Mon, 18 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Cleburne City Hall

10 North Robinson Cleburne TX 76031

Cleburne, TX 76031

United States

32° 20' 50.6292" N, 97° 23' 2.3208" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-468

Petitioner

Cleburne, TX

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cleburne Living Center

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 432 (1985)

Argued

Monday, March 18, 1985

Reargued:

Tuesday, April 23, 1985

Decided

Monday, July 1, 1985

Advocates

Renea Hicks (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Earl Luna (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

In 1980, Cleburne Living Center, Inc. submitted a permit application to operate a home for the mentally retarded. The city council of Cleburne voted to deny the special use permit, acting pursuant to a municipal zoning ordinance.

Question

Did the denial of the permit violate the Equal Protection rights of Cleburne Living Center, Inc. and its potential residents?

Conclusion

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

In a unanimous judgment, the Court held that the denial of the special use permit to Cleburne Living Centers, Inc. was premised on an irrational prejudice against the mentally retarded, and hence unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the Court declined to grant the mentally retarded the status of a "quasi-suspect class," it nevertheless found that the "rational relation" test for legislative action provided sufficient protection against invidious discrimination.

California v. Carney

Tue, 30 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-859

Petitioner

California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Carney

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 386 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, October 30, 1984

Decided

Monday, May 13, 1985

Advocates

Thomas F. Homann (on behalf of respondent)

Louis R. Hanoian (on behalf of petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ins v. Rios-Pineda

Wed, 20 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-2032

Petitioner

Ins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rios-Pineda

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 444 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, March 20, 1985

Decided

Monday, May 13, 1985

Advocates

Lawrence H. Rudnick (on behalf of Respondents)

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 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

Gould v. Ruefenacht

Tue, 26 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-165

Petitioner

Gould

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ruefenacht

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 701 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, March 26, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, May 28, 1985

Advocates

Robert C. Epstein (on behalf of the petitioner)

Peter Steven Pearlman (on behalf of the respondents)

Daniel L. Goelzer (on behalf of the SEC as amicus curiae in support of respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Ruefenacht, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Aguilar v. Felton

Wed, 05 Dec 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-237

Petitioner

Aguilar

Respondent

Felton

Consolidation

No. 84-238

No. 84-239

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 402 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, December 5, 1984

Decided

Monday, July 1, 1985

Advocates

Stanley Geller (Argued the cause for the appellees)

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

Facts of the Case

Part of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 authorized local institutions to receive funds to assist educationally deprived children from low-income families. Since 1966, New York City had used portions of its Title I funding to pay salaries of employees who teach in parochial schools.

Question

Did New York City's decision to use Title I funds to pay salaries of parochial school teachers violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

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

Yes. Even though the Court acknowledged that the efforts of the City of New York were well-intentioned, it found that the funding practices violated the Constitution. As part of New York's program, teachers were directed to avoid involvement in religious materials and activities in their classrooms. This, as well as the actions of school administrators and field supervisors who monitored classroom activities for religious content, posed constitutional problems for the majority. Involving agents of the city in extensive monitoring increased the potential for "divisiveness along religious lines" and violated the intent of the Establishment Clause which is to prevent the intrusion of church and state on each other's respective domain.

United States v. Powell

Mon, 05 Nov 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1307

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Powell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 57 (1984)

Argued

Monday, November 5, 1984

Decided

Monday, December 10, 1984

Advocates

John J. Cleary (on behalf of the Respondent)

Mark I. Levy (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:

None

County Of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation

Mon, 01 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1065

Petitioner

County Of Oneida

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oneida Indian Nation

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 83-1240

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 226 (1985)

Argued

Monday, October 1, 1984

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1985

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (as amicus curiae)

Peter H. Schiff (on behalf of Petitioner)

Allan van Gestel (on behalf of Petitioners)

Arlinda F. Locklear (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Oneida Indian Nation, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Garcia v. United States

Wed, 10 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-6061

Petitioner

Garcia

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 70 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, October 10, 1984

Decided

Monday, December 10, 1984

Advocates

Jerrold J. Ganzfried (on behalf of the Respondent)

Charles G. White (on behalf of the Petitioners (pro hac vice))

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 2114

None

Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon

Mon, 25 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-351

Petitioner

Atascadero State Hospital

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Scanlon

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 234 (1985)

Argued

Monday, March 25, 1985

Decided

Friday, June 28, 1985

Advocates

James E. Ryan (on behalf of the petitioners)

Marilyn Holle (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Atascadero State Hospital, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment

None

Maryland v. Macon

Wed, 17 Apr 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-778

Petitioner

Maryland

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Macon

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 463 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, April 17, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1985

Advocates

Deborah H. K. Chasanow (on behalf of Petitioner)

Burton W. Sandler (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Marrese v. American Academy Of Ortho. Surgeons

Tue, 04 Dec 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1452

Petitioner

Marrese

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

American Academy Of Ortho. Surgeons

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 373 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, December 4, 1984

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1985

Advocates

Charles W. Murdock (on behalf of Illinois, et al., as amicus curiae in support of petitioners)

Michael T. Sawyier (on behalf of petitioners)

D. Kendall Griffith (on behalf of respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Marrese, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1738

None

Carchman v. Nash

Mon, 22 Apr 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-776

Petitioner

Carchman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nash

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 84-835

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 716 (1985)

Argued

Monday, April 22, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, July 2, 1985

Advocates

Philip S. Carchman (on behalf of the petitioners)

John Burke, III (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Johnson v. Mayor & City Council Of Baltimore

Mon, 22 Apr 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-518

Petitioner

Johnson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mayor & City Council Of Baltimore

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 84-710

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 353 (1985)

Argued

Monday, April 22, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1985

Advocates

L. William Gawlik (on behalf of the respondents)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Johnson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Age Discrimination in Employment (ADEA)

None

Spencer v. South Carolina Tax Commission

Wed, 27 Feb 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-249

Petitioner

Spencer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

South Carolina Tax Commission

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 82 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, February 27, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, March 27, 1985

Advocates

Henry L. Parr, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Ray N. Stevens (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for South Carolina Tax Commission, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Cory v. Western Oil & Gas Assn.

Tue, 26 Feb 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-16

Petitioner

Cory

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Western Oil & Gas Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 81 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, February 26, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, March 27, 1985

Advocates

Dennis M. Eagan (on behalf of the Appellants)

Philip K. Verleger (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Western Oil & Gas Assn., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck

Wed, 16 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1748

Petitioner

Allis-Chalmers Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lueck

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 202 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, January 16, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, April 16, 1985

Advocates

Gerald S. Boisits (on behalf of the Respondent)

Theophil C. Kammholz (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Allis-Chalmers Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder

Tue, 09 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1153

Petitioner

Mills Music, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Snyder

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 153 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, October 9, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, January 8, 1985

Advocates

Harold R. Tyler, Jr. (on behalf of Respondent)

Marvin E. Frankel (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mills Music, Inc., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 17 U.S.C. 304

None

Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises

Tue, 06 Nov 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1632

Petitioner

Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nation Enterprises

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 539 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, November 6, 1984

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1985

Advocates

Edward A. Miller (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Floyd Abrams (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

In 1977, former President Gerald Ford contracted with Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. to publish his memoirs. Harper & Row negotiated a prepublication agreement with Time Magazine for the right to excerpt 7,500 words from Ford's account of his pardon of former President Richard Nixon. Before Time released its article, an unauthorized source provided The Nation Magazine with the unpublished Ford manuscript. Subsequently, The Nation, using approximately 300 words from the manuscript, scooped Time. Harper & Row sued The Nation, alleging violations of the Copyright Revision Act of 1976. The District Court held that The Nation's use of the copyrighted material constituted infringement. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that Nation's use of the copyrighted material was sanctioned as a fair use.

Question

Did the Copyright Revision Act of 1976's fair use doctrine sanction The Nation's unauthorized use of quotations from former President Gerald Ford's unpublished manuscript?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 17 U.S.C. 107

No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that The Nation's use of verbatim excerpts from the unpublished manuscript was not a fair use. The Court reasoned that the unpublished nature of a work is a key, though not necessarily determinative, factor tending to negate a defense of fair use. "Under ordinary circumstances, the author's right to control the first public appearance of his undisseminated expression will outweigh a claim of fair use," wrote Justice O'Connor. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the four statutory factors relevant to determining whether the use was fair were not satisfied. In his dissent, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., argued that the Court was advancing the protection of the copyright owner's economic interest "through an exceedingly narrow definition of the scope of fair use."

Tiverton Bd. Of License Comm'rs v. Pastore

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-963

Petitioner

Tiverton Bd. Of License Comm'rs

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pastore

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 238 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, November 27, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, January 8, 1985

Advocates

Kathleen Managhan (on behalf of the petitioner)

John H. Hines, Jr. (on behalf of the respondents;)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Abel

Wed, 07 Nov 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-935

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Abel

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 45 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, November 7, 1984

Decided

Monday, December 10, 1984

Advocates

Stephen S. Trott (on behalf of the petitioner)

Yolanda Barrera Gomez (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 Rules of Evidence

None

Winston v. Lee

Wed, 31 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1334

Petitioner

Winston

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 753 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, October 31, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, March 20, 1985

Advocates

Stacy F. Garrett, III (on behalf of the petitioners)

Joseph Ryland Winston (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Lee, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Evitts v. Lucey

Wed, 10 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1378

Petitioner

Evitts

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lucey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 387 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, October 10, 1984

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1985

Advocates

William M. Radigan (on behalf of the Respondent)

J. Gerald Henry (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Brandon v. Holt

Mon, 05 Nov 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1622

Petitioner

Brandon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Holt

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 464 (1985)

Argued

Monday, November 5, 1984

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1985

Advocates

Henry I. Klein (on behalf of the respondents)

Eric Schnapper (on behalf of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Cia v. Sims

Tue, 04 Dec 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1075

Petitioner

Cia

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sims

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 83-1249

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 159 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, December 4, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, April 16, 1985

Advocates

Paul Alan Levy (on behalf of respondents in No. 83-1075 and petitioners in No. 83-1249)

Richard K. Willard (on behalf of petitioners in No. 83-1075 and respondents in 83-1249)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Johns

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1625

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Johns

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 478 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, November 28, 1984

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1985

Advocates

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of petitioner)

William G. Walker (on behalf of Respondents)

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

Lowe v. SEC

Mon, 07 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1911

Petitioner

Lowe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Securities and Exchange Commission

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 181 (1985)

Argued

Monday, January 7, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1985

Advocates

Michael E. Schoeman (on behalf of Petitioners)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Lowe, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 80

None

Ake v. Oklahoma

Wed, 07 Nov 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-5424

Petitioner

Ake

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oklahoma

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 68 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, November 7, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1985

Advocates

Michael C. Turpen (on behalf of the respondent)

Arthur B. Spitzerm (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Ake, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Landreth Timber Co. v. Landreth

Tue, 26 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1961

Petitioner

Landreth Timber Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Landreth

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 681 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, March 26, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, May 28, 1985

Advocates

James Eastman Smith (on behalf of the Respondents)

James Linwood Quarles, III (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Landreth Timber Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

United States v. Montoya De Hernandez

Wed, 24 Apr 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-755

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Montoya De Hernandez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 531 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, April 24, 1985

Decided

Monday, July 1, 1985

Advocates

Peter Marvin Horstman (on behalf of the Respondent)

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc.

Wed, 20 Feb 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-28

Appellee

Spokane Arcades, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Brockett

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 84-143

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 491 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, February 20, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, June 19, 1985

Advocates

Christine O. Gregoire (on behalf of the Appellant)

John H. Weston (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Luce v. United States

Wed, 03 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-912

Petitioner

Luce

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 38 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, October 3, 1984

Decided

Monday, December 10, 1984

Advocates

Bruce M. Kuhlik (on behalf of Respondent)

James I. Marcus (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Evidence

None

Bennett v. New Jersey

Tue, 08 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-2064

Petitioner

Bennett

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New Jersey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 632 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, January 8, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, March 19, 1985

Advocates

Mary Ann Burgess (on behalf of Respondent)

Michael W. McConnell (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Bennett, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Elementary and Secondary Education

None

Pattern Makers v. NLRB

Wed, 27 Feb 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1894

Petitioner

Pattern Makers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 95 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, February 27, 1985

Reargued:

Monday, April 22, 1985

Decided

Thursday, June 27, 1985

Advocates

Charles Fried (on behalf of the Respondents)

Laurence E. Gold (on behalf of the Petitioners)

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

Rhode Island And New York Boundary Case

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

35 ORIG

Plaintiff

Rhode Island And New York Boundary Case

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 504 (1985)

Argued

Monday, November 26, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, February 19, 1985

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (on behalf of the plaintiff)

John G. Proudfit (on behalf of New York)

J. Peter Doherty (on behalf of Rhode Island)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Heckler v. Chaney

Mon, 03 Dec 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1878

Petitioner

Heckler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chaney

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 821 (1985)

Argued

Monday, December 3, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, March 20, 1985

Advocates

Stephen M. Kristovich (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Kenneth S. Geller (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Several prison inmates convicted of capital offenses and sentenced to death by lethal injection petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) alleging that the drugs to be used for their executions were not approved for use in human executions and therefore violated the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). When the FDA denied enforcement, the inmates brought suit claiming violations of the FDCA and requesting that the FDA be required to take enforcement actions. The district court granted summary judgment to the FDA holding that decisions declining to initiate enforcement proceedings were not judicially reviewable. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, finding that the decision not to begin an enforcement action was judicially reviewable under 5 U.S.C. Section 701(a)(2) and an abuse of discretion.

Question

Are decisions made by the FDA not to exercise enforcement authority over the use of drugs precluded from judicial review by Section 701(a)(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 501 et seq. (APA)?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Heckler, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Administrative Procedure, or Administrative Orders Review

Yes, they are presumptively unreviewable. Refusals of administrative agencies to exercise enforcement authority involve a complicated balancing of factors, including agency allocation of scarce resources, which are not suitable for judicial review. Thus, they are presumptively "committed to agency discretion by law" under Section 701(a)(2). This presumption may be rebutted where the substantive statute has provided guidelines for the agency to follow in exercising its enforcement powers. In the instant case, the presumption of unreviewability was not overcome by the enforcement provisions of the FDCA. The FDCA's prohibition on "misbranding" of drugs and introduction of "new drugs," absent agency approval, does not supply relevant guidelines. Neither does the FDA's "policy statement" indicating that the agency considered itself "obligated" to take certain investigative actions nor the FDCA's provision that the Secretary need not report for prosecution minor violations of the Act supply relevant guidelines.

Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conf. v. U.S.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1922

Petitioner

Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conf.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 48 (1985)

Argued

Monday, November 26, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, March 27, 1985

Advocates

Allen I. Hirsch (on behalf of the petitioners)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conf., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund

Tue, 19 Feb 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-312

Petitioner

Cornelius

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 788 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, February 19, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, July 2, 1985

Advocates

Charles Stephen Ralston (on behalf of the respondent)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Cornelius, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

United States v. Dann

Mon, 05 Nov 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1476

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dann

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 39 (1985)

Argued

Monday, November 5, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1985

Advocates

Robert A. Mc Connell (on behalf of the petitioner)

John D. O'Connell (on behalf of respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 25 U.S.C. 22

None

Lindahl v. Opm

Mon, 03 Dec 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-5954

Petitioner

Lindahl

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Opm

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 768 (1985)

Argued

Monday, December 3, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, March 20, 1985

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of Respondent)

John Murcko (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Lindahl, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 8347

None

Jean v. Nelson

Mon, 25 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-5240

Petitioner

Jean

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nelson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 846 (1985)

Argued

Monday, March 25, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, June 26, 1985

Advocates

Ira Jay Kurzban (on behalf of the petitioners)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Nelson, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Oregon Fish & Wildlife Dept. v. Klamath Tribe

Wed, 27 Feb 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-2148

Petitioner

Oregon Fish & Wildlife Dept.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Klamath Tribe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 753 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, February 27, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, July 2, 1985

Advocates

Don Brantley Miller (on behalf of the respondent)

David B. Frohnmayer (on behalf of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Oregon Fish & Wildlife Dept., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 16 Stat. 707

None

Liparota v. United States

Tue, 19 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-5108

Petitioner

Liparota

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 419 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, March 19, 1985

Decided

Monday, May 13, 1985

Advocates

Charles A. Rothfeld (on behalf of the Respondent)

William Thomas Huyck (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Liparota, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 7 U.S.C. 2024

None

United States v. Boyle

Wed, 10 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1266

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Boyle

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 241 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, October 10, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, January 9, 1985

Advocates

Thomas E. Davies (on behalf of the Respondent)

Albert G. Lauber, Jr. (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

NAACP v. Hampton County Election Comm'n

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1015

Appellee

Hampton County Election Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 166 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, November 28, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, February 27, 1985

Advocates

David A. Strauss (as amicus curiae supporting appellants)

Armand Derfner (on behalf of appellants)

Treva G. Ashworth (on behalf of appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts

Mon, 25 Feb 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-233

Petitioner

Phillips Petroleum Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shutts

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 797 (1985)

Argued

Monday, February 25, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, June 26, 1985

Advocates

Joel I. Klein (on behalf of the respondent)

Arthur R. Miller (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Phillips Petroleum Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

Split Vote

None

Russell v. United States

Wed, 24 Apr 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-435

Petitioner

Russell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 858 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, April 24, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1985

Advocates

Julius Lucius Echeles (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Christopher J. Wright ()

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 844

None

First National Bank v. Bartow Cty. Tax Assessors

Tue, 30 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1620

Appellee

Bartow Cty. Tax Assessors

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

First National Bank

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 583 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, October 30, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, March 19, 1985

Advocates

Grace P. Evans (on behalf of Appellees)

Charles T. Zink (on behalf of appellant)

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of U.S. as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bartow Cty. Tax Assessors, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 31 U.S.C. 742

None

Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida, Dept of Corrections v. Johnny Paul Witt

Tue, 02 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1427

Petitioner

Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida, Dept of Corrections

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Johnny Paul Witt

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Argued

Tuesday, October 2, 1984

Advocates

William C. Mclain (on behalf of Respondent)

Robert J. Landry (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida, Dept of Corrections, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Supreme Court Of New Hampshire v. Piper

Wed, 31 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1466

Appellee

Piper

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Supreme Court Of New Hampshire

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 274 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, October 31, 1984

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1985

Advocates

Jon Meyer (on behalf of the Appellee)

Martin I. Gross (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Piper, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Privileges and Immunities Clause

None

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:39:31 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-712

Petitioner

New Jersey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

T.L.O.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 1214 (1984)

Decided

Thursday, July 5, 1984

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston

Tue, 09 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-997

Petitioner

Trans World Airlines, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thurston

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 83-1325

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 111 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, October 9, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, January 8, 1985

Advocates

Raymond C. Fay (on behalf of Thurston, et al)

Henry J. Oechler, Jr. (on behalf of TWA)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the EEOC)

Michael E. Abram (on behalf of ALPA)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Trans World Airlines, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Age Discrimination in Employment (ADEA)

None

Air France v. Saks

Tue, 15 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1785

Petitioner

Air France

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Saks

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 392 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, January 15, 1985

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1985

Advocates

Bennett M. Cohen (on behalf of the respondent)

Stephen C. Johnson (on behalf of the petitioner)

Carroll E. Dubuc (on behalf of Republic of France as amicus curiae supporting petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Air France, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Treaty

None

Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.

Wed, 27 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-510

Petitioner

Aspen Skiing Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 585 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, March 27, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, June 19, 1985

Advocates

Richard M. Cooper (on behalf of Petitioner)

Tucker Karl Trautman (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Santa Ana

Wed, 20 Feb 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-262

Petitioner

Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Santa Ana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 237 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, February 20, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1985

Advocates

Scott E. Borg (on behalf of the Respondent)

Kathryn Marie Krause (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 43 Stat. 641

None

Federal Election Commission v. NCPAC

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1032

Appellee

NCPAC

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Federal Election Commission

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 83-1122

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 480 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, November 28, 1984

Decided

Monday, March 18, 1985

Advocates

Charles N. Steele (Argued the cause for the Federal Election Commission)

Robert R. Sparks, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Steven B. Feirson (Argued the cause for the Democratic Party of the United States)

Facts of the Case

In 1975, the National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC) was accused by both the Democratic Party of the United States and the Federal Election Commission of violating the Federal Election Campaign Act. The Act stipulated that independent political action committees could not spend more than $1,000 to support the election of a presidential candidate. This case was decided together with Democratic Party v. NCPAC.

Question

Did the law violate the NCPAC's First Amendment rights of free speech and association?

Conclusion

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

Yes. The Court held that the expenditures prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Act were "at the core of the First Amendment" and could not be restricted by the government. The Court rejected the notion that the PACs' form of organization diminished their entitlement to First Amendment protection. The Court drew a distinction between contributions to candidates-- which were open to corruption--and contributions to independent organizations in support of candidates.

Webb v. Dyer County Bd. Of Ed.

Mon, 29 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1360

Petitioner

Webb

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dyer County Bd. Of Ed.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 234 (1985)

Argued

Monday, October 29, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, April 17, 1985

Advocates

Charles Stephen Ralston (on behalf of Petitioner)

S. Russell Headrick (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Dyer County Bd. Of Ed., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

Fugate v. New Mexico

Tue, 19 Feb 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-6663

Petitioner

Fugate

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New Mexico

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 904 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, February 19, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, March 26, 1985

Advocates

Paul G. Bardacke (on behalf of Respondent)

J. Thomas Sullivan (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

Tue, 08 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-2097

Petitioner

Burger King Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rudzewicz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 462 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, January 8, 1985

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1985

Advocates

Joel S. Perwin (on behalf of the appellant)

Thomas H. Oehmke (on behalf of the appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Burger King Corp., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Herb's Welding, Inc. v. Gray

Wed, 03 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-728

Petitioner

Herb's Welding, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gray

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 414 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, October 3, 1984

Decided

Monday, March 18, 1985

Advocates

Carolyn F. Corwin (on behalf of the federal respondent)

Wood Brown, III (on behalf of the petitioners)

T. Gerald Henderson (on behalf of respondent Gray)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Herb's Welding, Inc., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation

None

Mcdonald v. Smith

Wed, 20 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-476

Petitioner

Mcdonald

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Smith

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 479 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, March 20, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, June 19, 1985

Advocates

Bruce J. Ennis, Jr. (on behalf of Petitioner)

William A. Eagles (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Smith, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Petition Clause

None

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Ward

Wed, 31 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1274

Appellee

Ward

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 869 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, October 31, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, March 26, 1985

Advocates

Matthew J. Zinn (on behalf of Appellants)

Warren B. Lightfoot (on behalf of Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Wayte v. United States

Tue, 06 Nov 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1292

Petitioner

Wayte

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 598 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, November 6, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, March 19, 1985

Advocates

Mark D. Rosenbaum (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

Mr. Wayte was required by a 1980 Presidential Proclamation to register with the Selective Service system. Instead, he wrote letters to various government officials stating that he had not registered and did not intend to do so. Wayte's letters were added to a file kept by the Selective Service of men who had informed the government that they were not complying with the proclamation.

The Selective Service later adopted a policy of passive enforcement, in which it would prosecute only men who had either reported to the government that they were not registering or whom other people had reported to the government for not registering. After a long series of requests by the government that Wayte register (all of which he failed to respond to), the government eventually indicted Wayte in federal district court for violating the Military Selective Service Act.

The district court, however, dismissed the indictment, holding that the government's passive enforcement policy was unconstitutional because it amounted to selective prosecution of only those men who took an outspoken stance against the Selective Service. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Wayte had failed to show that the government focused its attention on him because of his protest activities.

Question

Did the Justice Department's policy of passive enforcement of the Selective Service Act, in which it prosecuted only those men who were reported by others or who reported themselves for not registering with the Selective Service system, violate the First and Fifth Amendments?

Conclusion

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

No. The Supreme Court held, 7-to-2, that the government's passive enforcement policy was constitutional. In the majority opinion, Justice Lewis Powell found that the government's policy was not unconstitutional selective enforcement (in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection clause) because men who had not taken an outspoken stance against the Selective Service, but who were merely reported by others for failing to register, were treated the same as those men who had notified the government of their own refusal to register. Justice Powell wrote, "In the present case, petitioner has not shown that the Government prosecuted him because of his protest activities. Absent such a showing, his claim of selective prosecution fails."

To decide the First Amendment challenge, Justice Powell cited four requirements for incidental government regulation of speech laid out in United States v. O'Brien: the regulation must be within the government's constitutional power, must further an important or substantial government interest, must have an interest unrelated to the suppression of free speech, and must restrict only as much speech as is necessary to meet the government interest. Powell found that the passive enforcement policy satisfied all these requirements, and therefore did not violate the First Amendment.

National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe

Tue, 16 Apr 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-320

Petitioner

National Farmers Union Ins. Cos.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Crow Tribe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 845 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, April 16, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1985

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae in support of respondents)

Clarence T. Belue (for respondents Leroy Sage and Flora Not Afraid)

Clay Riggs Smith (on behalf of Montana as amicus curiae in support of petitioners)

Rodney T. Hartman (on behalf of petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for National Farmers Union Ins. Cos., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1331

None

Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller

Tue, 26 Feb 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-127

Petitioner

Richardson-Merrell Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Koller

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 424 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, February 26, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1985

Advocates

Michael H. Gottesman (on behalf of the Respondents)

Lawrence E. Walsh (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Richardson-Merrell Inc., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

Board Of Ed. v. National Gay Task Force

Mon, 14 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-2030

Petitioner

Board Of Ed.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Gay Task Force

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 903 (1985)

Argued

Monday, January 14, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, March 26, 1985

Advocates

Laurence H. Tribe (on behalf of the appellees)

Dennis W. Arrow (on behalf of the appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for National Gay Task Force, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

National R. Passenger Corp. v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co.

Tue, 15 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1492

Petitioner

A. T. & S. F. R. Co.

Respondent

National R. Passenger Corp.

Consolidation

No. 83-1633

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 451 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, January 15, 1985

Decided

Monday, March 18, 1985

Advocates

Paul F. Mickey, Jr. (on behalf of National Railroad Passenger Corporation)

Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (on behalf of the Untied States in support of National Railroad Passenger Corporation)

George A. Platz (on behalf of Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe, et al)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for National R. Passenger Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 45 U.S.C. 565

None

Chemical Manufacturers Assn. v. NRDC

Tue, 06 Nov 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1013

Petitioner

Chemical Manufacturers Assn.

Respondent

NRDC

Consolidation

No. 83-1373

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 116 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, November 6, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, February 27, 1985

Advocates

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

Frances Dubrowski (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Chemical Manufacturers Assn., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water), plus amendments

None

United States v. Hensley

Mon, 05 Nov 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1330

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hensley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 221 (1985)

Argued

Monday, November 5, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, January 8, 1985

Advocates

Kathryn A. Oberly (on behalf of Petitioner)

Edward G. Drennen, II (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

United States v. Young

Tue, 02 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-469

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Young

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 1 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, October 2, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1985

Advocates

Michael W. Mc Connell (on behalf of Petitioner)

Burck Bailey (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

United States v. Albertini

Mon, 15 Apr 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1624

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Albertini

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 675 (1985)

Argued

Monday, April 15, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 24, 1985

Advocates

Charles S. Sims (on behalf of the Respondent)

David A. Strauss (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1382

None

Alexander v. Choate

Mon, 01 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-727

Petitioner

Alexander

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Choate

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 287 (1985)

Argued

Monday, October 1, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, January 9, 1985

Advocates

W. J. Michael Cody (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Paul M. Bator (as amicus curiae)

G. Gordon Bonnyman, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth

Mon, 18 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1569

Petitioner

Mitsubishi Motors

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Soler Chrysler-Plymouth

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 83-1733

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 614 (1985)

Argued

Monday, March 18, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, July 2, 1985

Advocates

Wayne Alan Cross (on behalf of Mitsubishi)

Benjamin Rodriguez-Ramon (on behalf of Soler-Chrysler-Plymouth)

Jerrold Joseph Gansfried (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae in support of Soler Chrysler-Plymouth)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mitsubishi Motors, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 9 U.S.C. 1

None

Hooper v. Bernalillo County Assessor

Wed, 20 Feb 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-231

Appellee

Bernalillo County Assessor

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hooper

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 612 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, February 20, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 24, 1985

Advocates

Alvin D. Hooper (on behalf of the Appellants)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hooper, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Alabama And Mississippi Boundary Case

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

9 ORIG

Plaintiff

Alabama And Mississippi Boundary Case

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 93 (1985)

Argued

Monday, November 26, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, February 26, 1985

Advocates

Benjamin Cohen (on behalf of Alabama)

Louis F. Claiborne (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

Jim R. Bruce (on behalf of Mississippi)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Burlington School Comm. v. Mass. Dept. Of Ed.

Tue, 26 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-433

Petitioner

Burlington School Comm.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mass. Dept. Of Ed.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 359 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, March 26, 1985

Decided

Monday, April 29, 1985

Advocates

David Berman (on behalf of the petitioners)

David W. Rosenberg (on behalf of respondent Panico)

Ellen L. Janos (on behalf of the state respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mass. Dept. Of Ed., 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

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill

Mon, 03 Dec 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Cleveland Metropolitan School District

1380 East 6th St Cleveland OH 44114

Cleveland, OH 44114

United States

41° 30' 8.2944" N, 81° 41' 30.4728" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1362

Petitioner

Cleveland Board of Education

Respondent

James Loudermill

Consolidation

No. 83-1363

No. 83-6392

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 532 (1985)

Argued

Monday, December 3, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, March 19, 1985

Advocates

Robert M. Fertel (on behalf of the respondents in Nos. 83-1362 and 83-1363 and the petitioner in No. 83-6392)

James G. Wyman (on behalf of the petitioners in Nos. 83-1362 and 83-1363 and respondents in No. 83-6392)

Facts of the Case

James Loudermill stated on his application for employment with the Cleveland Board of Education that he had never been convicted for a felony. After hiring him as a security guard, the board discovered that he had been convicted for grand larceny and without further consideration fired him for providing false information on his application. Since Loudermill qualified as a "classified civil servant" under Ohio law, he obtained a property right to his employment. This meant he could only be dismissed for cause and could obtain an administrative review of the causes for his termination. The Cleveland Civil Service Commission granted him an administrative review after his termination and found it valid. Loudermill filed suit in District Court alleging that the review system was unconstitutional because it only allowed him to respond to the charges against him after his termination. He argued that the board removed his property without giving him a chance to defend himself in violation of his right to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court agreed that the Ohio statute gave Loudermill a property right to his job, but ruled that the board did not violate his due process rights because it followed the procedures specified by the same statute for removing the property right. In a similar case, Richard Donnelly alleged that post- dismissal hearings violated his due process rights. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit heard both cases together and ruled that the board violated both defendants' due process rights by removing their property rights to employment before providing an opportunity for them to respond to charges against them.

Question

Can a state remove a civil servant's property rights to employment before providing an opportunity for that worker to respond to the charges offered for his termination?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Loudermill, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

No. Justice Byron White authored the opinion for an 8-1 court. The Ohio statute clearly grants civil servants property rights to their employment. In order to lawfully remove this property, the Due Process Clause requires a procedure that carefully weighs the interests of the government in removing the property against the interests of the private party in retaining the property. This procedure must incorporate the "essential requirements of due process," which "are notice and an opportunity to respond." There was no strong reason to delay the opportunity to respond until after termination. The Court found that "affording the employee an opportunity to respond prior to termination would impose neither a significant administrative burden nor intolerable delays." Accordingly, the significant interests of the employees to retain their jobs outweighed the interests of the state to remove employees quickly.

Jensen, v. Quaring

Mon, 07 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1944

Petitioner

Jensen,

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Quaring

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 478 (1985)

Argued

Monday, January 7, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1985

Advocates

Ruth Anne E. Galter (on behalf of the petitioners)

Thomas C. Lansworth (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ohio v. Kovacs

Wed, 10 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1020

Petitioner

Ohio

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kovacs

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 274 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, October 10, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, January 9, 1985

Advocates

David A. Caldwell (On behalf of the Respondents)

E. Dennis Muchnicki (on behalf of Petitioner)

Kathryn A. Oberly (On behalf of the United States Government as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Kovacs, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Eastern Air Lines v. Mahfoud

Tue, 15 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1807

Petitioner

Eastern Air Lines

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mahfoud

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

474 U.S. 213 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, January 15, 1985

Reargued:

Wednesday, October 9, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, December 10, 1985

Advocates

Richard M. Sharp (on behalf of Petitioner)

George E. Farrell (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Northwest Stationers v. Pacific Stationery

Tue, 19 Feb 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1368

Petitioner

Northwest Stationers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pacific Stationery

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 284 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, February 19, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, June 11, 1985

Advocates

Joseph P. Bauer (on behalf of the respondent)

David J. Sweeney (on behalf of the petitioner)

Catherine G. O'Sullivan (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae in support of petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Northwest Stationers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Williamson Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank

Tue, 19 Feb 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-4

Petitioner

Williamson Planning Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hamilton Bank

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 172 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, February 19, 1985

Decided

Friday, June 28, 1985

Advocates

Robert L. Estes (on behalf of the petitioners)

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae in support of petitioners)

G. T. Nebel (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Williamson Planning Comm'n, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

Hallie v. Eau Claire

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1832

Petitioner

Hallie

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Eau Claire

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 34 (1985)

Argued

Monday, November 26, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, March 27, 1985

Advocates

Claude J. Covelli (on behalf of Petitioners)

Frederick W. Fischer (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

In Re Snyder

Tue, 16 Apr 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-310

Petitioner

In Re Snyder

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 634 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, April 16, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 24, 1985

Advocates

David L. Peterson (on behalf of the petitioner)

John J. Greer (on behalf of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for In Re Snyder, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

NLRB v. Longshoremen

Tue, 23 Apr 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-861

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Longshoremen

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 61 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, April 23, 1985

Decided

Thursday, June 27, 1985

Advocates

Norton J. Come (on behalf of the petitioner)

Donato Caruso (on behalf of respondents New York Shipping Association, et al)

Ernest L. Mathews, Jr. (on behalf of respondents International Longshoremen's Association, et al)

James Alan Lips (on behalf of the respondents American Trucking Associations, et al. in support of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Longshoremen, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central Transport, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-2157

Petitioner

Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Central Transport, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 559 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, November 27, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, June 19, 1985

Advocates

Patrick A. Moran (on behalf of the Respondents)

Joshua I. Schwartz (as amicus curiae supporting the Petitioners)

Russell N. Luplow (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Estate of Thornton v. Caldor

Wed, 07 Nov 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1158

Petitioner

Estate of Thornton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Caldor

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 703 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, November 7, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, June 26, 1985

Advocates

Paul Gerwitz (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Nathan Lewin (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Joseph I. Lieberman (Argued the cause for the State of Connecticut)

Facts of the Case

Donald E. Thornton worked as a supervisor in the Caldor department store chain. A devout Presbyterian, Thornton asked to be excused from working Sundays at the company's store in Torrington, Connecticut. The store required its managers to work one of every four Sundays, although rank-and-file employees were exempt under their union contract from Sunday work. In 1979, the company refused to allow Thornton to take off Sundays but offered him a transfer to another store, an hour away in Massachusetts, that was closed on Sundays. When he turned that down, the company said it would demote him from his manager's job and cut his hourly pay from $6.46 to $3.50. Thornton had worked Sundays for nearly eight months before he became aware the store was violating Connecticut law giving employees an absolute right not to work on their chosen Sabbath. He filed a grievance against Caldor with the state board of mediation. The board ruled in his favor. The state supreme court reversed. Thornton's estate (Thornton died in 1982) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari.

Question

Does the Connecticut statute violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Court held 8-to-1 that the Connecticut Sabbath observance statute was void, saying its "unyielding weighing in favor of Sabbath observers over all other interests" results in an unconstitutional mingling of church and state. In his opinion, Burger wrote that the Connecticut law "provides Sabbath observers with an absolute and unqualified right not to work on their Sabbath." Burger said the state law "thus commands that Sabbath religious concerns automatically control over all secular interests at the workplace; the statute takes no account of the convenience or interests of the employer or those of other employees who do not observe a Sabbath."

Dowling v. United States

Wed, 17 Apr 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-589

Petitioner

Dowling

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 207 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, April 17, 1985

Decided

Friday, June 28, 1985

Advocates

Carolyn F. Corwin (on behalf of Respondent)

Michael D. Abzug (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Dowling, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 2314

None

Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe

Tue, 15 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-2161

Petitioner

Montana

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Blackfeet Tribe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 759 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, January 15, 1985

Reargued:

Tuesday, April 23, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1985

Advocates

Deirdre Boggs (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Edwin S. Kneedler (as amicus curiae supporting the Respondent)

Jeanne S. Whiteing (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Blackfeet Tribe, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 25 U.S.C. 396

None

Hayes v. Florida

Wed, 09 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-6766

Petitioner

Hayes

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 811 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, January 9, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, March 20, 1985

Advocates

William I. Munsey, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Michael E. Raiden (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Hayes, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Weintraub

Tue, 19 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036

United States

38° 54' 17.946" N, 77° 2' 47.4288" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-261

Petitioner

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gary Weintraub, Frank H. McGhee, Andrew McGhee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 343 (1985)

Granted

Monday, October 29, 1984

Argued

Tuesday, March 19, 1985

Decided

Monday, April 29, 1985

Advocates

Bruce M. Kuhlik (for the petitioner)

David A. Epstein (for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the Commission) filed a complaint against the Chicago Discount Commodity Brokers (CDCB), alleging violations of the Commodity Exchange Act. CDCB was going through bankruptcy at the time and a trustee was appointed At a deposition related to the Commission’s lawsuit, Gary Weintraub, CDCB’s former counsel, refused to answer certain questions, citing attorney-client privilege. The Commission obtained a waiver of attorney-client privilege from the CDCB’s bankruptcy trustee. The district court directed Weintraub to answer the questions, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that a bankruptcy trustee does not have the power to waive attorney-client privilege for communications that occurred before the filing of the bankruptcy petition.

Question

Does the trustee of a corporation in bankruptcy have the power to waive that corporation's attorney-client privilege with respect to communications that took place before the bankruptcy petition was filed?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

Justice Thurgood Marshall, writing for a unanimous court, reversed the Seventh Circuit. The Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy trustee does have the power to waive attorney client privilege for communications that occurred before filing the bankruptcy petition. This power is held by the management of a corporation, and a bankruptcy trustee is merely a new form of management. If the power to waive attorney-client privilege remained with the corporation’s directors, it would frustrate the goal of the trustee, to uncover fraud and misappropriated corporate assets. Justice Lewis F. Powell did not participate.

United States v. Locke

Tue, 06 Nov 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1394

Appellee

Locke

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 84 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, November 6, 1984

Decided

Monday, April 1, 1985

Advocates

Carolyn F. Corwin (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Harold A. Swafford (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 43 U.S.C. 1744

None

Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc. v. United States

Wed, 31 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1007

Petitioner

Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 310 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, October 31, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, January 9, 1985

Advocates

Michael D. Savage (on behalf of Petitioners)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mitchell v. Forsyth

Wed, 27 Feb 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-335

Petitioner

Mitchell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Forsyth

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 511 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, February 27, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, June 19, 1985

Advocates

Paul M. Bator (on behalf of the petitioner)

David Rudovsky (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

Split Vote

None

Wallace v. Jaffree

Tue, 04 Dec 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Public Schools Mobile, AL

United States

30° 41' 39.6852" N, 88° 2' 34.9944" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-812

Appellee

Jaffree

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Wallace

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

Smith v. Jaffree, No. 83-929

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 38 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, December 4, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, June 4, 1985

Advocates

Paul M. Bator (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

John S. Baker, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Ronnie L. Williams (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

An Alabama law authorized teachers to conduct regular religious prayer services and activities in school classrooms during the school day. Three of Jaffree's children attended public schools in Mobile.

Question

Did Alabama law violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Jaffree, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

Yes. The Court determined the constitutionality of Alabama's prayer and meditation statute by applying the secular purpose test, which asked if the state's actual purpose was to endorse or disapprove of religion. The Court held that Alabama's passage of the prayer and meditation statute was not only a deviation from the state's duty to maintain absolute neutrality toward religion, but was an affirmative endorsement of religion. As such, the statute clearly lacked any secular purpose as it sought to establish religion in public schools, thereby violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

Garrett v. United States

Wed, 16 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1842

Petitioner

Garrett

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 773 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, January 16, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1985

Advocates

Philip A. DeMassa (on behalf of Petitioner)

Mark I. Levy (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 21 U.S.C. 848

None

United States v. Miller

Wed, 16 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Location

San Francisco Scrap Metals, Inc. San Francisco, CA

United States

37° 46' 30.7416" N, 122° 25' 9.1524" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1750

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

James Rual Miller

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 130 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, January 16, 1985

Decided

Monday, April 1, 1985

Advocates

Andrew L. Frey (Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States)

Jerrold M. Ladar (appointed by the Court, argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

An indictment issued by a grand jury charged James Miller with fraud. The indictment alleged he conspired with a burglar and overstated the value of the stolen items so his insurer would pay him more in damages recovery. The prosecution presented evidence proving that Miller had overstated the value of the items but did not try to establish that he had conspired with the burglar. The jury found his overstatement of value sufficient to convict him of fraud. Miller argued that by convicting him despite the fact that the prosecutors only addressed part of the indictment, the jury violated his Fifth Amendment right to be tried only on a grand jury indictment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed and reversed his conviction.

Question

Does the Fifth Amendment right to be tried on a grand jury indictment provide that the jury can only convict the accused if the prosecution addresses every allegation included in the indictment?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Grand Jury

No. Justice Thurgood Marshall delivered the decision for an 8-0 court. The Court maintained that an indictment is valid so long as it "clearly set[s] out the offense for which [the accused] was ultimately convicted." In this case, the defense clearly understood that Miller could be convicted for fraud solely because he overstated the value of the stolen items. Failing to convict him on other grounds did not annul his proven criminal conduct. The allegation of conspiring with a burglar constituted another "means of committing the same crime" and could be "treated as a useless averment that may be ignored" once the prosecution dropped it.

Superintendent v. Hill

Mon, 25 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-438

Petitioner

Superintendent

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hill

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 445 (1985)

Argued

Monday, March 25, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1985

Advocates

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

Jamie Ann Sabino (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. National Bank Of Commerce

Mon, 15 Apr 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-498

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Bank Of Commerce

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 713 (1985)

Argued

Monday, April 15, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, June 26, 1985

Advocates

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

Terry F. Wynne (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Springfield Township School Dist. v. Knoll

Mon, 14 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1889

Petitioner

Springfield Township School Dist.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Knoll

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 288 (1985)

Argued

Monday, January 14, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, April 17, 1985

Advocates

Robert H. Chanin (on behalf of the respondent)

Charles Potash (on behalf of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Springfield Township School Dist., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Connecticut Dept. Of Income Maint. v. Heckler

Wed, 27 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-2136

Petitioner

Connecticut Dept. Of Income Maint.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Heckler

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 524 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, March 27, 1985

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1985

Advocates

Charles A. Miller (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Kathryn A. Oberly (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Northeast Bancorp, Inc. v. Federal Reserve System

Mon, 15 Apr 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-363

Petitioner

Northeast Bancorp, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Federal Reserve System

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 159 (1985)

Argued

Monday, April 15, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1985

Advocates

Laurence H. Tribe (Argued the cause for the respondents Bank of New England Corp. et al)

Stephen M. Shapiro (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Rex E. Lee (Argued the cause for the federal respondent)

Facts of the Case

Certain bank holding companies located principally in either Connecticut or Massachusetts applied to the Federal Reserve Board (Board) to obtain approval for acquisitions of banks or bank holding companies (banks) in the other state. If a bank from one state seeks to acquire a bank, or substantially all of a bank's assets, from another state, the Douglas Amendment to the Bank Holding Company Act (BHCA), 12 U.S.C. Section 1842(d), allows the Board to approve the acquisition only if it "is specifically authorized by the statute laws of the State in which such [acquired] bank is located." Massachusetts and Connecticut have substantially similar laws allowing out-of-state banks to buy in-state banks only if the out-of-state banks (1) have their principal place of business in another New England State, and (2) the other New England State accords equivalent reciprocal privileges. Certain banks from outside of New England opposed the acquisitions, but the Board found that the Douglas Amendment did not prevent their authorization, and approved them.

Question

Does the Douglas Amendment permit states to allow banks only from certain other states to buy in-state banks, and, if so, do such state laws violate the Commerce, the Compact, or the Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Federal Reserve System, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 1842

Yes to part 1; no to part 2. Though the Douglas Amendment's language does not specifically indicate that a state may partially lift the ban on out-of-state banks acquiring in-state banks, the Amendment's legislative history indicates that Congress intended to allow each state such flexibility. Moreover, the Massachusetts and Connecticut laws favoring out-of-state banks from New England are consistent with the broader purpose underlying the BHCA: to retain local control over banking. As for the constitutionality of these state laws, there is no violation of the dormant Commerce Clause because Congress exercised its commerce power by enacting the BHCA and the Douglas Amendment. There is no violation of the Compact Clause because Massachusetts and Connecticut did not form a compact, and even if they did, they do not pose a threat to federal supremacy. Finally, there is no violation of the Equal Protection Clause because our country has traditionally favored widely dispersed control of banking, and so the concerns Massachusetts and Connecticut had with preserving the local nature of banking meet the traditional rational basis for judging equal protection claims.

Hunter v. Underwood

Tue, 26 Feb 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-76

Appellee

Underwood

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hunter

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 222 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, February 26, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, April 16, 1985

Advocates

Wilson Edward Still, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellees)

James D. Ward (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Underwood, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Baldwin v. Alabama

Wed, 27 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-5743

Petitioner

Baldwin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alabama

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 372 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, March 27, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1985

Advocates

Edward E. Carnes (on behalf of Respondent)

John L. Carroll (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd

Tue, 04 Dec 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1708

Petitioner

Dean Witter Reynolds Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Byrd

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 213 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, December 4, 1984

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1985

Advocates

Eric V. Benham (on behalf of the respondent)

Eugene W. Bell (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 9 U.S.C. 1

None

Oregon v. Elstad

Wed, 03 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Elstad's Residence Polk County, OR

United States

44° 55' 35.9508" N, 123° 29' 30.9336" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-773

Petitioner

Oregon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Elstad

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 298 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, October 3, 1984

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1985

Advocates

Gary D. Babcock (Argued the cause for the respondent)

David B. Frohnmayer (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Michael James Elstad was suspected of committing a burglary and was picked up by police officers in his home. Before officers had given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, Elstad made an incriminating statement. Once at the Sheriff's headquarters, Elstad was advised of his rights. Elstad then voluntarily executed a written confession.

Question

Was Elstad's written confession made invalid by the failure of the officers to administer Miranda warnings at his home?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Oregon, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miranda Warnings

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that while Miranda required that unwarned admissions must be suppressed, subsequent statements, if made knowingly and voluntarily, need not be. The Court held that ". . .the mere fact that a suspect has made an unwarned admission does not warrant a presumption of compulsion." The Court also noted that police officers were ill-equipped to determine when "custody" legally begins. Justice O'Connor, writing for the majority, argued that the holding "in no way retreat[ed] from the bright-line rule of Miranda."

United States v. Shearer

Mon, 25 Feb 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-194

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shearer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 52 (1985)

Argued

Monday, February 25, 1985

Decided

Thursday, June 27, 1985

Advocates

William T. Cannon (on behalf of the Respondent)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Tort Claims, or Alien Tort Statute

None

Black v. Romano

Mon, 18 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-465

Petitioner

Black

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Romano

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 606 (1985)

Argued

Monday, March 18, 1985

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1985

Advocates

Jordan B. Cherrick (appointed by this Court)

John M. Morris, III (on behalf of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Black, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Board Of Trustees Of Scarsdale v. Mccreary

Wed, 20 Feb 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-277

Petitioner

Board Of Trustees Of Scarsdale

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mccreary

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 83 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, February 20, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, March 27, 1985

Advocates

Marvin Schwartz (on behalf of the Respondents)

Marvin E. Frankel (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Grand Rapids School District v. Ball

Wed, 05 Dec 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-990

Petitioner

Grand Rapids School District

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ball

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 373 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, December 5, 1984

Decided

Monday, July 1, 1985

Advocates

Michael W. Mc Connell (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae supporting Petitioners)

Kenneth F. Ripple (on behalf of Petitioners)

A. E. Dick Howard (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Atkins v. Parker

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1660

Petitioner

Atkins

Respondent

Parker

Consolidation

No. 83-6381

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 115 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, November 27, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, June 4, 1985

Advocates

Ellen L. Janos (on behalf of the petitioner in No. 83-1660)

Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (on behalf of the federal respondents in No. 83-6381 and in support of the petitioner in No. 83-1660)

Steven A. Hitov (on behalf of Parker, et al)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Atkins, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 7 U.S.C. 2011

None

Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co.

Wed, 17 Apr 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-648

Petitioner

Sedima, S. P. R. L.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Imrex Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 479 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, April 17, 1985

Decided

Monday, July 1, 1985

Advocates

Richard Jordan Eisenberg (on behalf of Respondents)

Franklyn H. Snitow (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Sedima, S. P. R. L., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

None

Tennessee v. Garner

Tue, 30 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1035

Appellee

Garner

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Tennessee

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 83-1070

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 1 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, October 30, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, March 27, 1985

Advocates

W. J. Michael Cody (on behalf of appellants in 83-1035)

Henry I. Klein (on behalf of petitioners in 83-1070)

Steven L. Winter (on behalf of appellees in 83-1035 and respondents in 83-1070)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Heckler v. Turner

Tue, 09 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1097

Petitioner

Heckler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Turner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 184 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, October 9, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, February 27, 1985

Advocates

Carter G. Phillips (on behalf of the petitioner)

Mark N. Aaronson (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Heckler, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Francis v. Franklin

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1590

Petitioner

Francis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Franklin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 307 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, November 28, 1984

Decided

Monday, April 29, 1985

Advocates

Susan V. Boleyn (on behalf of Petitioner)

Ronald J. Tabak (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. 50 Acres Of Land

Tue, 02 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1170

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

50 Acres Of Land

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 24 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, October 2, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, December 4, 1984

Advocates

H. Louis Nichols (on behalf of Respondent)

Joshua I. Schwartz (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Oklahoma City v. Tuttle

Tue, 08 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1919

Petitioner

Oklahoma City

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tuttle

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 808 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, January 8, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1985

Advocates

Burk Bailey (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Carl Hughes (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Oklahoma City, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Zauderer v. Office Of Disciplinary Counsel

Mon, 07 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-2166

Appellee

Office Of Disciplinary Counsel

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Zauderer

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 626 (1985)

Argued

Monday, January 7, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, May 28, 1985

Advocates

Alan B. Morrison (on behalf of the Appellant)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Zauderer, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Split Vote

None

Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell

Wed, 16 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-9

Petitioner

Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Russell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 134 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, January 16, 1985

Reargued:

Wednesday, April 24, 1985

Decided

Thursday, June 27, 1985

Advocates

Brad N. Baker (on behalf of Respondent)

John E. Nolan, Jr. (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

United States v. Bagley

Wed, 20 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-48

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bagley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 667 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, March 20, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, July 2, 1985

Advocates

David A. Strauss (on behalf of the petitioner)

Thomas W. Hillier, II (on behalf of the respondent, appointed by this Court)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Kentucky v. Graham

Tue, 16 Apr 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-849

Petitioner

Kentucky

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Graham

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 159 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, April 16, 1985

Decided

Friday, June 28, 1985

Advocates

George M. Geoghegan, Jr. (on behalf of the petitioner)

Jack M. Lowery, Jr. (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Marek v. Chesny

Wed, 05 Dec 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1437

Petitioner

Marek

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chesny

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 1 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, December 5, 1984

Decided

Thursday, June 27, 1985

Advocates

Donald G. Peterson (on behalf of the petitioners)

Victor J. Stone (on behalf of the respondent)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Marek, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Labs.

Tue, 16 Apr 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1925

Appellee

Automated Medical Labs.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hillsborough County

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 707 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, April 16, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1985

Advocates

Larry A. Stumpf (on behalf of the appellee)

Richard Landfield (on behalf of the American Blood Resources Association as amicus curiae in support of appellee)

Paul J. Larkin, Jr. (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae in support of appellants)

Emeline C. Acton (on behalf of the appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hillsborough County, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 42 U.S.C. 262

None

Shea v. Louisiana

Wed, 07 Nov 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-5920

Petitioner

Shea

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 51 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, November 7, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1985

Advocates

Paul Joseph Carmcuche (on behalf of the Respondent)

Frances Baker Jack (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Caldwell v. Mississippi

Mon, 25 Feb 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-6607

Petitioner

Caldwell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mississippi

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 320 (1985)

Argued

Monday, February 25, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, June 11, 1985

Advocates

E. Thomas Boyle (on behalf of the petitioner)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Caldwell, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

None

Anderson v. Bessemer City

Mon, 03 Dec 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1623

Petitioner

Anderson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bessemer City

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 564 (1985)

Argued

Monday, December 3, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, March 19, 1985

Advocates

Carolyn F. Corwin (as amici curiae)

Philip M. Van Hoy (on behalf of the Respondent)

Jonathan Wallas (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Anderson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Park'n Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park And Fly, Inc.

Tue, 09 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1132

Petitioner

Park'n Fly, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dollar Park And Fly, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 189 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, October 9, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, January 8, 1985

Advocates

John M. McCormack (on behalf of Respondent)

Alan E. Popkin (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Park'n Fly, Inc., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 1065

None

United States v. Sharpe

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-529

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sharpe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 675 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, November 27, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, March 20, 1985

Advocates

Mark J. Kadish (as amicus curiae in support of judgment below)

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

American National Bank & Tr. Co. v. Haroco, Inc.

Wed, 17 Apr 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-822

Petitioner

American National Bank & Tr. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Haroco, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 606 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, April 17, 1985

Decided

Monday, July 1, 1985

Advocates

Donald E. Egan (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Aram A. Hartunian (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Haroco, Inc., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

None

Oklahoma v. Castleberry

Wed, 20 Mar 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-2126

Petitioner

Oklahoma

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Castleberry

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 146 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, March 20, 1985

Decided

Monday, April 1, 1985

Advocates

Charles Foster Cox (on behalf of the respondent)

David W. Lee (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts

Tue, 26 Feb 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-325

Appellee

Massachusetts

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 84-356

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 724 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, February 26, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1985

Advocates

Sally A. Kelly (on behalf of the Appellees)

Addison Lane McGovern (on behalf of the Appellant)

Jay Greenfield (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Massachusetts, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Cornelius v. Nutt

Mon, 07 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1673

Petitioner

Cornelius

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nutt

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 648 (1985)

Argued

Monday, January 7, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 24, 1985

Advocates

Charles A. Rothfeld (pro hac vice)

Charles A. Hobbie (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Cornelius, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 7701

None

Paulsen v. Commissioner

Mon, 29 Oct 1984 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-832

Petitioner

Paulsen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Commissioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 131 (1985)

Argued

Monday, October 29, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, January 8, 1985

Advocates

William R. Nicholas (on behalf of the Petitioners)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Commissioner, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Bennett v. Kentucky Dept. Of Education

Tue, 08 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1798

Petitioner

Bennett

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kentucky Dept. Of Education

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 656 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, January 8, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, March 19, 1985

Advocates

Robert L. Chenoweth (on behalf of the Respondent)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Bennett, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Elementary and Secondary Education

None

Wilson v. Garcia

Mon, 14 Jan 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-2146

Petitioner

Wilson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Garcia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 261 (1985)

Argued

Monday, January 14, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, April 17, 1985

Advocates

Bruce M. Hall (on behalf of the petitioners)

Steven G. Farber (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Garcia, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None