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