Cases - 1985 term

Green v. Mansour

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-6270

Petitioner

Green

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mansour

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

474 U.S. 64 (1985)

Argued

Monday, October 7, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, December 3, 1985

Advocates

Louis J. Caruso (on behalf of the respondent)

William Burnham (on behalf of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Maine v. Taylor

Mon, 24 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Maine State Legislature

2 State House Augusta ME 04330

Augusta, ME 04330

United States

44° 18' 51.9804" N, 69° 46' 26.8968" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-62

Appellee

Taylor

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Maine

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

477 U.S. 131 (1986)

Argued

Monday, March 24, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, June 24, 1986

Advocates

E. Paul Eggert (Argued the cause for appellee Taylor)

Cabanne Howard (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Jerrold J. Ganzfried (Argued the cause for the United States, as appellee under the Court's Rule 10.4, in support of appellant)

Facts of the Case

In order to protect its fisheries from parasites and non-native species, the state of Maine prohibited the importation of live baitfish. Robert J. Taylor, the owner of a bait business, violated the law and was prosecuted by Maine authorities.

Question

Did the Maine law unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce, violating the Commerce Clause?

Conclusion

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

No. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the limitation imposed by the Commerce Clause on state regulatory power was not absolute and that the States "retain[ed] authority under their general police powers to regulate matters of 'legitimate local concern.'" The Court found that Maine's ban on the importation oflive baitfish served a legitimate local purpose that could not adequately be served by available nondiscriminatory alternatives. The Court argued that the ban was not a simple case of "arbitrary discrimination against interstate commerce."

United States v. Hughes Properties, Inc.

Wed, 23 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-554

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hughes Properties, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 593 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, April 23, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, June 3, 1986

Advocates

O. Clayton Lilienstern (on behalf of Respondent)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Hughes Properties, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Macdonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County

Wed, 26 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-2015

Appellee

Yolo County

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Macdonald, Sommer & Frates

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

477 U.S. 340 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, March 26, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, June 25, 1986

Advocates

Howard N. Ellman (on behalf of the appellant)

William L. Owen (on behalf of the appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Yolo County, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

Evans v. Jeff D.

Wed, 13 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1288

Petitioner

Evans

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jeff D.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 717 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, November 13, 1985

Decided

Monday, April 21, 1986

Advocates

William T. Coleman, Jr. (on behalf of the respondents)

James Thomas Jones (on behalf of the petitioners)

Lawrence G. Wallace (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 Evans, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps

Tue, 03 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1491

Appellee

Hepps

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Philadelphia Newspapers Inc.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 767 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, December 3, 1985

Decided

Monday, April 21, 1986

Advocates

David H. Marion (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Ronald H. Surkin (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

In a series of articles, the Philadelphia Inquirer accused Hepps of links to organized crime and of capitalizing on that connection to influence the state legislature. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court favored Hepps and held that the newspaper was obligated to prove its accusations true.

Question

Did the state supreme court's decision violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion

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

Yes. Relying on its reasoning in Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. (1974), the Court reversed the state court's decision. The Gertz standard for evaluating potentially libelous speech required that "the plaintiff bear the burden of showing falsity, as well as fault, before recovering damages."

Bowers v. Hardwick

Mon, 31 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Hardwick's Apartment Atlanta, GA

United States

33° 44' 56.382" N, 84° 23' 16.7352" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-140

Petitioner

Bowers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hardwick

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

478 U.S. 186 (1986)

Argued

Monday, March 31, 1986

Decided

Monday, June 30, 1986

Advocates

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

Michael E. Hobbs (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Michael Hardwick was observed by a Georgia police officer while engaging in the act of consensual homosexual sodomy with another adult in the bedroom of his home. After being charged with violating a Georgia statute that criminalized sodomy, Hardwick challenged the statute's constitutionality in Federal District Court. Following a ruling that Hardwick failed to state a claim, the court dismissed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that Georgia's statute was unconstitutional. Georgia's Attorney General, Michael J. Bowers, appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted certiorari.

Question

Does the Constitution confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy, thereby invalidating the laws of many states which make such conduct illegal?

Conclusion

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

No. The divided Court found that there was no constitutional protection for acts of sodomy, and that states could outlaw those practices. Justice Byron White argued that the Court has acted to protect rights not easily identifiable in the Constitution only when those rights are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" (Palko v. Connecticut, 1937) or when they are "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition" (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965). The Court held that the right to commit sodomy did not meet either of these standards. White feared that guaranteeing a right to sodomy would be the product of "judge-made constitutional law" and send the Court down the road of illegitimacy.

United States v. Lane

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-744

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lane

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 84-963

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

474 U.S. 438 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, October 9, 1985

Decided

Monday, January 27, 1986

Advocates

Clifford W. Brown (on behalf of James C. Lane and Dennis R. Lane)

Bruce M. Kuhlik (on behalf of the United States)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Longshoremen v. Davis

Tue, 25 Feb 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-217

Appellee

Davis

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Longshoremen

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 380 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, February 25, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, May 27, 1986

Advocates

Bayless E. Biles (on behalf of Appellee)

Charles R. Goldburg (on behalf of Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Davis, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Darden v. Wainwright

Mon, 13 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-5319

Petitioner

Darden

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wainwright

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

477 U.S. 168 (1986)

Argued

Monday, January 13, 1986

Decided

Monday, June 23, 1986

Advocates

Richard W. Prospect (on behalf of the respondent)

Robert A. Harper, Jr. (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Automobile Workers v. Brock

Tue, 25 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1777

Petitioner

Automobile Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brock

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

477 U.S. 274 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, March 25, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, June 25, 1986

Advocates

Marsha S. Berzon (on behalf of the petitioners)

Carolyn B. Kuhl (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Automobile Workers, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Wisconsin Dept. Of Industry v. Gould Inc.

Mon, 09 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1484

Appellee

Gould Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Wisconsin Dept. Of Industry

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 282 (1986)

Argued

Monday, December 9, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, February 26, 1986

Advocates

Charles D. Hoornstra (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Columbus R. Gangemi (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Gould Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Witters v. Wash. Dept. Of Services For Blind

Wed, 06 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1070

Petitioner

Witters

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wash. Dept. Of Services For Blind

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

474 U.S. 481 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, November 6, 1985

Decided

Monday, January 27, 1986

Advocates

Timothy R. Malone (on behalf of the Respondent)

Michael P. Farris (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Witters, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

None

Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-773

Petitioner

Bender

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Williamsport Area School Dist.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 534 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, October 15, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, March 25, 1986

Advocates

John C. Youngman, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondents)

James M. Smart, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Charles Fried (as amicus curiae in support of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Williamsport Area School Dist., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

None

Heath v. Alabama

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-5555

Petitioner

Heath

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alabama

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

474 U.S. 82 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, October 9, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, December 3, 1985

Advocates

William Duncan Little, III (on behalf of the respondent)

Ronald J. Allen (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Nantahala Power & Light v. Thornburg

Mon, 21 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-568

Appellee

Thornburg

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Nantahala Power & Light

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 953 (1986)

Argued

Monday, April 21, 1986

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1986

Advocates

Louis R. Cohen (for the United States, as amicus curiae, in support of Appellants)

William T. Crisp (on behalf of Appellees)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Nantahala Power & Light, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Power

None

Department Of Treasury v. Galioto

Wed, 26 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1904

Appellee

Galioto

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Department Of Treasury

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

477 U.S. 556 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, March 26, 1986

Decided

Thursday, June 26, 1986

Advocates

Michael A. Casale (on behalf of Appellee)

Charles A. Rothfeld (on behalf of Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Department Of Treasury, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Bowen v. Mich. Academy Of Family Physicians

Wed, 22 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-225

Petitioner

Bowen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mich. Academy Of Family Physicians

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 667 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, January 22, 1986

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1986

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Alan G. Gilchrist (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mich. Academy Of Family Physicians, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Medicare--provisions of the Social Security Act

None

New Mexico v. Earnest

Tue, 01 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-162

Petitioner

New Mexico

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Earnest

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

477 U.S. 648 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, April 1, 1986

Decided

Friday, June 27, 1986

Advocates

Paul G. Bardacke (on behalf of Petitioner)

J. Thomas Sullivan (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for New Mexico, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

None

Papasan v. Allain

Tue, 22 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-499

Petitioner

Papasan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Allain

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

478 U.S. 265 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, April 22, 1986

Decided

Monday, July 7, 1986

Advocates

T. H. Freeland, III (on behalf of the petitioners)

Richard Lloyd Arnold (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. City of Fulton

Tue, 21 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1725

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

City of Fulton

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 657 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, January 21, 1986

Decided

Monday, April 7, 1986

Advocates

Andrew J. Pincus (on behalf of Petitioner)

Charles F. Wheatley, Jr. (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

In 1979, the Southwestern Power Administration, a federal regulatory body acting on behalf of the Secretary of Energy, increased the cost of electricity generated by federally owned dams under its control. The price hike was initially implemented on an interim basis, and three years later, after furher review, the new rates were made permanent. A group of cities that purchased power from the dams filed suit to recover the extra fees it had paid before the interim rates were made final, claiming that Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 prohibited the imposition of interim fees. The Act stated that new rates would "become effective upon confirmation and approval by the Secretary (of Energy)." The cities asserted that the rates, while in their interim phase, had not yet received "confirmation and approval" from the Secretary and could therefore not be legally implemented.

The Court of Claims sided with the cities, holding that the new rates could only be charged once they received final approval from the Secretary. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed.

Question

Can the Secretary of Energy or his delegates impose new hydro-electricity prices on an interim basis under Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 16 U.S.C. 825

Yes. In an opinion delivered by Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the Secretary of Energy could impose rate hikes on an interim basis without violating the Act. The Court found that the language of the Act and its legislative history did not conclusively show whether Congress intended the Secretary to impose rate hikes on an interim basis. The Secretary's decision, therefore, only needed to be a reasonable attempt to balance the competing interests in the act: preventing unnecessarily high charges to customers while still allowing the dams to be self-sufficient (and therefore not a burden on government resources). Justice Marshall wrote "Interim ratesetting appears well suited to accommodating that dual goal... [and therefore] the procedures established by the Secretary to exercise his powers under the Flood Control Act both are within his delegated authority and constitute a reasonable accommodation of the policies underlying that Act." The Court further found that the rate increases were consistent with the cities' electricity contracts, which were based largely on the language of the Act.

Wainwright v. Greenfield

Wed, 13 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1480

Petitioner

Wainwright

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Greenfield

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

474 U.S. 284 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, November 13, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, January 14, 1986

Advocates

Ann Carrison Paschall (on behalf of the petitioner)

James D. Whittemore (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Diamond v. Charles

Tue, 05 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1379

Appellee

Charles

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Diamond

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 54 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, November 5, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, April 30, 1986

Advocates

R. Peter Carey (on behalf of Appellees)

Dennis J. Horan (on behalf of Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Charles, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2: Extent of Judicial Power

None

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

Tue, 01 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-198

Petitioner

Celotex Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Catrett

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

477 U.S. 317 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, April 1, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, June 25, 1986

Advocates

Leland S. Van Koten (on behalf of Petitioner)

Paul M. Smith (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Celotex Corp., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

United States v. American College of Physicians

Tue, 21 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1737

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

American College of Physicians

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 834 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, January 21, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, April 22, 1986

Advocates

John B. Huffaker ()

Albert G. Lauber, Jr. ()

Facts of the Case

The American College of Physicians, a non-profit, tax-exempt organization, published a monthly medical journal. Within the journal were paid advertisements for products useful in the field of medicine specifically covered by the journal. Section 511(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on "unrelated business taxable income" of tax-exempt organizations. The IRS asserted that the advertising income from the medical journal fell under this category. The American College of Physicians countered that the advertisements were "substantially related" to its tax-exempt purpose of maintaining high standards in medicine, and that they were therefore tax- exempt. When the IRS refused to give the organization a tax refund, it filed suit in United States Claims Court.

The Claims Court held that the advertisements were not substantially related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose and that the income was therefore taxable. On appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, ruling that the advertisements helped to educate the journal's readers and was therefore substantially related.

Question

Were advertisements for medical products in the American College of Physicians' medical journal "substantially related" to the organization's tax- exempt purpose of maintaining high standards in medicine, and therefore tax- exempt?

Conclusion

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

No. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Supreme Court held that the advertisements in this particular case were not "substantially related" to the medical journal's educational purposes. The Court found that the conduct of the journal, rather than the content of the advertisements, was the relevant factor. Quoting the Claims Court, Justice Marshall wrote, "The evidence is clear that plaintiff did not use the advertising to provide its readers a comprehensive or systematic presentation of any aspect of the goods or services publicized. Those companies willing to pay for advertising space got it; others did not." The Court rejected both the government's contention that all advertising revenue should be taxed and the journal's contention that any informative advertising revenue should be exempt, relying instead on a case-by-case examination.

Henderson v. United States

Tue, 01 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1744

Petitioner

Henderson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 321 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, April 1, 1986

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1986

Advocates

Roger Clegg (on behalf of the respondent)

Denise Anton (on behalf of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 3161

None

Michigan v. Jackson

Mon, 09 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1531

Petitioner

Michigan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jackson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 84-1539

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 625 (1986)

Argued

Monday, December 9, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, April 1, 1986

Advocates

Ronald J. Bretz (on behalf of Respondent Rudy Bladel)

James Krogsrud (on behalf of Respondent Robert Bernard Jackson)

Brian E. Thiede (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Dion

Tue, 25 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-246

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dion

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 734 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, March 25, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, June 11, 1986

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of the petitioner)

Terry L. Pechota (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: 16 U.S.C. 668

None

United States v. Von Neumann

Mon, 04 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1144

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Von Neumann

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

474 U.S. 242 (1986)

Argued

Monday, November 4, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, January 14, 1986

Advocates

Charles L. Birke (on behalf of the Respondent)

Alan I. Horowitz (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: Due Process

None

Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc.

Tue, 29 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-390

Petitioner

Los Angeles

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Preferred Communications, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 488 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, April 29, 1986

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1986

Advocates

Edward J. Perez (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Harold R. Farrow (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

Tue, 03 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1602

Petitioner

Anderson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Liberty Lobby, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

477 U.S. 242 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, December 3, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, June 25, 1986

Advocates

David J. Branson (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Mark Lane (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Liberty Lobby, Inc. (Liberty), a nonprofit "citizen's lobby" corporation, filed a libel action against a magazine published by Jack Anderson et al. Liberty claimed that one of Anderson's articles contained false and derogatory statements about its operations. In its defense, Anderson claimed that as a pubic entity Liberty must show with "convincing clarity" that Anderson acted with actual malice - something they could not do since the article's author stated in an affidavit that he thoroughly researched and cross-checked all his information. Liberty claimed that Anderson did act with actual malice since its author depended on patently unreliable sources. Following a district court's summary judgment ruling favoring Anderson, an appellate court reversed as it held that the lower court erroneously applied actual malice standards of proof at the summary judgement phase. Anderson appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question

Can a court, in the context of a summary judgment request, award summary judgment in a libel action if the moving party had no evidence that a reasonable jury might disbelieve its opponent's claim?

Conclusion

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

No. In a 6-to-3 opinion, the Court held that the purpose of summary judgments is to determine if the evidence is so one-sided that a party should prevail as a matter of law. Summary judgments will not lie if there is a sufficient likelihood that a reasonable jury would return a verdict favorable to the nonmoving party. In libel cases involving public entities, trial courts faced with summary judgment motions must decide whether a reasonable jury could conclude with convincing clarity that actual malice existed. The mere assertion by a plaintiff that a defendant's summary judgment motion is deficient because a reasonable jury might disbelieve the defendant's denial of actual malice is insufficient to warrant a grant of summary judgment without any offer of evidentiary proof to that effect. The Court reversed the appellate court's decision and remanded for reconsideration of its summary judgment ruling.

Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council

Mon, 03 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-5

Petitioner

Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Del. Valley Citizens' Council

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 711 (1987)

Argued

Monday, March 3, 1986

Reargued:

Wednesday, October 15, 1986

Decided

Friday, June 26, 1987

Advocates

James D. Crawford (on behalf of Respondents)

Jay C. Waldman (on behalf of Petitioners)

Donald B. Ayer (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, in support of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Pennsylvania, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clean Air

None

Brock v. Pierce County

Tue, 01 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-385

Petitioner

Brock

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pierce County

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 253 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, April 1, 1986

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1986

Advocates

Andrew J. Pincus (on behalf of the petitioner)

Joseph F. Quinn (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Brock, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 29 U.S.C. 106

None

Pa. Bureau Of Correction v. U.S. Marshals

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-489

Petitioner

Pa. Bureau Of Correction

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S. Marshals

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

474 U.S. 34 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, October 15, 1985

Decided

Monday, November 18, 1985

Advocates

Leroy S. Zimmerman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Mark I. Levy (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for U.S. Marshals, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 567

None

Louisiana Public Service Comm'n v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

Mon, 13 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-871

Petitioner

Louisiana Public Service Comm'n

Respondent

Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

Consolidation

California v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), No. 84-889

Public Utilities Commission of Ohio v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), No. 84-1054

Florida Public Service Commission v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), No. 84-1069

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 355 (1986)

Argued

Monday, January 13, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, May 27, 1986

Advocates

Michael Boudin (on behalf of AT&T and the former Bell System Operating Companies)

Lawrence G. Malone (on behalf of the appellant and petitioners)

Charles Fried (on behalf of the federal parties)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Louisiana Public Service Comm'n, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Communication Act of 1934

None

Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering

Mon, 24 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1973

Petitioner

Three Affiliated Tribes

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wold Engineering

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 877 (1986)

Argued

Monday, March 24, 1986

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1986

Advocates

Raymond Cross (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Gary H. Lee (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Three Affiliated Tribes, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1360

None

At&T Technologies v. Communications Workers

Wed, 22 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1913

Petitioner

At&T Technologies

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Communications Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 643 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, January 22, 1986

Decided

Monday, April 7, 1986

Advocates

Laurence E. Gold (on behalf of the respondent)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for At&T Technologies, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Sorenson v. Secretary Of Treasury

Wed, 15 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1686

Petitioner

Sorenson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Secretary Of Treasury

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 851 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, January 15, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, April 22, 1986

Advocates

Richard Farber (on behalf of the respondents)

Peter Greenfield (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Maine

Thu, 12 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

35 ORIG

Plaintiff

United States

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Maine

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 89 (1986)

Argued

Thursday, December 12, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, February 25, 1986

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (on behalf of the Defendant)

Henry Herrmann (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lyng v. Payne

Mon, 24 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1948

Petitioner

Lyng

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Payne

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 926 (1986)

Argued

Monday, March 24, 1986

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1986

Advocates

Bruce M. Kuhlik (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Theodore L. Tripp, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Lyng, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

Bowen v. Roy

Tue, 14 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-780

Appellee

Roy

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Bowen

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 693 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, January 14, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, June 11, 1986

Advocates

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the appellants.,)

Gary S. Gildin (on behalf of the appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Bowen, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Free Exercise of Religion

None

Batson v. Kentucky

Thu, 12 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Circuit Court of Jefferson County

600 W. Jefferson St. Louisville KY 40202

Louisville, KY 40202

United States

38° 15' 14.5368" N, 85° 45' 38.2644" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-6263

Petitioner

Batson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kentucky

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 79 (1986)

Argued

Thursday, December 12, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, April 30, 1986

Advocates

J. David Niehaus (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Rickie L. Pearson (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Lawrence G. Wallace (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance)

Facts of the Case

Batson, a black man, was on trial charged with second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the jury selection, the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike the four black persons on the venire, resulting in a jury composed of all whites. Batson was convicted on both of the charges against him.

Question

Did the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude the four blacks from the jury violate Batson's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a fair jury trial and his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Batson, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

The Court found that the prosecutor's actions violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Relying heavily on precedents set in Strauder v. West Virginia (1880) and Swain v. Alabama (1965), Justice Powell held that racial discrimination in the selection of jurors not only deprives the accused of important rights during a trial, but also is devastating to the community at large because it "undermines public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice." Without identifying a "neutral" reason why the four blacks should have been excluded from the jury, the prosecutor's actions were in violation of the Constitution.

Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington

Tue, 25 Feb 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-195

Petitioner

Icicle Seafoods, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Worthington

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 709 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, February 25, 1986

Decided

Monday, April 21, 1986

Advocates

Carson F. Eller (on behalf of Respondents)

Clemens H. Barnes (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Lockhart v. McCree

Mon, 13 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Court in Ouachita County Ouachita County, AR

United States

33° 34' 58.2636" N, 92° 56' 15.2664" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1865

Petitioner

Lockhart

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

McCree

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 162 (1986)

Argued

Monday, January 13, 1986

Decided

Monday, May 5, 1986

Advocates

John Steven Clark (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Samuel R. Gross (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

During the capital trial of Ardia McCree, a judge removed prospective jurors who stated that under no circumstances would they be able to impose the death penalty. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the judge's actions violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. A.L. Lockhart, the director of the Arkansas Department of Correction, appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Question

During a capital trial does the Constitution prohibit the removal of prospective jurors whose opposition to the death penalty is so strong that it would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties at the sentencing phase of the trial?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Lockhart, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 6: Other Sixth Amendment Provisions

The Court found that excluding people who are unwilling under any circumstances to impose the death penalty during sentencing did not violate a defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Justice Rehnquist argued that the state has a legitimate interest to impanel jurors who "can properly and impartially apply the law to the facts of the case at both the guilt and sentencing phases of a capital trial." As long as a jury is selected from a fair cross-section of the community, is impartial, and can properly apply the law to a case's circumstances, then a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial is protected.

Colorado v. Connelly

Thu, 17 May 2012 17:01:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-660

Petitioner

Colorado

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Connelly

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

474 U.S. 1050 (1986)

Decided

Monday, January 13, 1986

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

University Of Tennessee v. Elliott

Mon, 21 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-588

Petitioner

University Of Tennessee

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Elliott

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

478 U.S. 788 (1986)

Argued

Monday, April 21, 1986

Decided

Monday, July 7, 1986

Advocates

Ronald L. Ellis (on behalf of Respondent)

Beauchamp E. Brogan (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for University Of Tennessee, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: res judicata

None

Skipper v. South Carolina

Mon, 24 Feb 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-6859

Petitioner

Skipper

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

South Carolina

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 1 (1986)

Argued

Monday, February 24, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, April 29, 1986

Advocates

Harold M. Coombs, Jr. (on behalf of the respondent)

David I. Bruck (on behalf of the petitioner, appointed by this Court)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Skipper, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

None

Attorney General Of N. Y. v. Soto-Lopez

Wed, 15 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1803

Petitioner

Attorney General Of N. Y.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Soto-Lopez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 898 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, January 15, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, June 17, 1986

Advocates

Kenneth Kimerling (on behalf of the Appellees)

Robert Hermann (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Soto-Lopez, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

United States v. James

Mon, 21 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-434

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

James

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

478 U.S. 597 (1986)

Argued

Monday, April 21, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, July 2, 1986

Advocates

Andrew J. Pincus (on behalf of the Petitioner)

T. John Ward (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 33 U.S.C. 702

None

United States v. Quinn

Wed, 05 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1717

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Quinn

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 791 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, March 5, 1986

Decided

Monday, April 21, 1986

Advocates

Eugene G. Iredale (on behalf of the respondent)

Mark I. Levy (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Quinn, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None