Cases - 1986 term

Commissioner Of Internal Revenue v. Fink

Mon, 27 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-511

Petitioner

Commissioner Of Internal Revenue

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fink

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 89 (1987)

Argued

Monday, April 27, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1987

Advocates

Matthew J. Zinn (argued the cause for respondents)

Alan I. Horowitz (argued the cause for petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Miller v. Florida

Tue, 21 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-5344

Petitioner

Miller

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 423 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, April 21, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, June 9, 1987

Advocates

Anthony Calvello (on behalf of Petitioner)

Joy B. Shearer (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Miller, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 10: Ex Post Facto

None

Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors In Action

Tue, 20 Jan 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-184

Petitioner

Stringfellow

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Concerned Neighbors In Action

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 370 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, January 20, 1987

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1987

Advocates

David L. Mulliken (on behalf of Petitioners)

Joel Reynolds (on behalf of Respondents)

Paul J. Larkin, Jr. (on behalf of Respondent United States in support of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Woods

Tue, 04 Nov 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1088

Petitioner

Burlington Northern R. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Woods

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 1 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, November 4, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1987

Advocates

L. Vastine Stabler, Jr. (on behalf of Petitioner)

James O. Haley (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Turner v. Safley

Tue, 13 Jan 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1384

Petitioner

Turner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Safley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 78 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1987

Advocates

Henry Thomas Herschel (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Floyd R. Finch, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Board Of Pardons v. Allen

Wed, 01 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-461

Petitioner

Board Of Pardons

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Allen

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 369 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, April 1, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, June 9, 1987

Advocates

Stephen L. Pevar (on behalf of the Respondents)

Clay Riggs Smith (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc.

Wed, 29 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-322

Petitioner

Crawford Fitting Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

J. T. Gibbons, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 86-328

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 437 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, April 29, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1987

Advocates

William H. Block (on behalf of the respondent in No. 86-322)

Ernest P. Mansour (on behalf of the petitioners in No. 86-322)

James E. Youngdahl (on behalf of the respondent in No. 86-328)

Jeffrey A. Walker (on behalf of the petitioner in No. 86-328)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for J. T. Gibbons, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1821

None

Welch v. Texas Highways & Public Transp. Dept.

Wed, 04 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1716

Petitioner

Welch

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Texas Highways & Public Transp. Dept.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 468 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, March 4, 1987

Decided

Thursday, June 25, 1987

Advocates

Michael D. Cucullu (on behalf of the petitioner)

F. Scott McCown (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Texas Highways & Public Transp. Dept., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment

None

Buchanan v. Kentucky

Mon, 12 Jan 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-5348

Petitioner

Buchanan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kentucky

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 402 (1987)

Argued

Monday, January 12, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, June 24, 1987

Advocates

Kevin Michael McNally (on behalf of the Petitioner)

David A. Smith (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Kentucky, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Trial By Jury

None

United States v. Merchant

Wed, 04 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1672

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Merchant

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 615 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, March 4, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1987

Advocates

Penelope M. Cooper (on behalf of the respondent)

Paul J. Larkin, Jr. (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne

Tue, 24 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-341

Appellee

Coyne

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Fort Halifax Packing Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 1 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, March 24, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1987

Advocates

John C. Yavis, Jr. (on behalf of Appellant)

Thomas D. Warren (on behalf of Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Coyne, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Societe Nat. Ind. Aero. v. U.S. Dist. Court

Wed, 14 Jan 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1695

Petitioner

Societe Nat. Ind. Aero.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S. Dist. Court

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 522 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1987

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of the United States and Securities and Exchange Commission, as amicus curiae)

John W. Ford (on behalf of the petitioners)

Richard H. Doyle (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Societe Nat. Ind. Aero., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Treaty

None

California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians

Tue, 09 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Riverside County CA

United States

33° 40' 57.2124" N, 115° 28' 24.078" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1708

Appellee

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

California et al.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 202 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, December 9, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, February 25, 1987

Advocates

Roderick Eugene Walston (Supervising Deputy Attorney General of California, on behalf of the appellants)

Glenn M. Feldman (on behalf of the appellees)

Facts of the Case

Two federally recognized Indian Tribes had reservation land within Riverside County, California where they conducted bingo and card games open to non- Indians. The gambling industry provided employment to many Indians on the reservation, and most clients were non-Indians. The State of California wanted to apply state gambling laws to reservation gaming and Riverside County wanted to apply local ordinances. Together, these laws would ban the card games and put charitable organizations in charge of bingo games. The Tribes claimed that the imposition of gambling laws by the state government violated their sovereignty. They brought suit against the state of California and Riverside County in federal district court. The district court ruled that neither the state nor the county had the authority to regulate gambling on reservation land. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Question

Do state and local governments have the authority to regulate gambling conducted on Indian reservation land?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Cabazon Band Of Mission Indians, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets, National Firearms, Organized Crime Control, Comprehensive Crime Control, or Gun Control Acts, except for RICO (q.v.) portion

No. Justice Byron R. White delivered the opinion for a 6-3 court. State laws require the consent of Congress in order to apply to Indian reservations. While the federal government consented to states enforcing criminal laws on reservation land, gambling regulations are types of civil law and therefore not enforceable. The Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 did not grant states the authority to regulate gambling either. Although the Act incorporated certain state gambling laws into federal laws regulating gambling on reservations, this did not grant states authority to enforce the new federal laws on reservations. Absent explicit permission for regulation, states can only enforce laws on reservations if their interests in regulation outweigh the interests of the federal government and tribal authorities. In this case, gambling provided revenue critical to the economic self-sufficiency of the reservation. Accordingly, the federal government's interest to ensure Indian self-government outweighed state concerns about organized crime developing because of unregulated reservation gaming.

United States v. Mendoza-Lopez

Tue, 03 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-2067

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mendoza-Lopez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 828 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, March 3, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, May 26, 1987

Advocates

Kathy Goudy (on behalf of the Respondent, appointed by this Court)

Christopher J. Wright (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mendoza-Lopez, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort Of Colorado, Inc.

Mon, 06 Oct 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-473

Petitioner

Cargill, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Monfort Of Colorado, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 104 (1986)

Argued

Monday, October 6, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, December 9, 1986

Advocates

Ronald G. Carr (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Louis R. Cohen (for the United States and Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae, in support of Petitioners)

William C. McClearn (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Cargill, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux

Wed, 21 Jan 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1043

Petitioner

Pilot Life Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dedeaux

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 41 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, January 21, 1987

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1987

Advocates

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

William G. Walker (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

McCleskey v. Kemp

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

Location

Dixie Furniture Store Atlanta, GA

United States

33° 44' 56.382" N, 84° 23' 16.7352" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-6811

Petitioner

McCleskey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kemp

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 279 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, October 15, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, April 22, 1987

Advocates

John Charles Boger (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Mary Beth Westmoreland (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

McCleskey, a black man, was convicted of murdering a police officer in Georgia and sentenced to death. In a writ of habeas corpus, McCleskey argued that a statistical study proved that the imposition of the death penalty in Georgia depended to some extent on the race of the victim and the accused. The study found that black defendants who kill white victims are the most likely to receive death sentences in the state.

Question

Did the statistical study prove that McCleskey's sentence violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Kemp, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

The Court held that since McCleskey could not prove that purposeful discrimination which had a discriminatory effect on him existed in this particular trial, there was no constitutional violation. Justice Powell refused to apply the statistical study in this case given the unique circumstances and nature of decisions that face all juries in capital cases. He argued that the data McCleskey produced is best presented to legislative bodies and not to the courts.

South Dakota v. Dole

Tue, 28 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Location

South Dakota Legislature

500 E Capitol Ave Pierre SD 57501

Pierre, SD 57501

United States

44° 22' 1.5132" N, 100° 20' 46.8708" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-260

Petitioner

South Dakota

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dole

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 203 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, April 28, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, June 23, 1987

Advocates

Louis R. Cohen (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Roger A. Tellinghuisen (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

In 1984, Congress enacted legislation ordering the Secretary of Transportation to withhold five percent of federal highway funds from states that did not adopt a 21-year-old minimum drinking age. South Dakota, a state that permitted persons 19 years of age to purchase alcohol, challenged the law.

Question

Did Congress exceed its spending powers, or violate the Twenty-first Amendment, by passing legislation conditioning the award of federal highway funds on the states' adoption of a uniform minimum drinking age?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Dole, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 23 U.S.C. 158

No. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that Congress, acting indirectly to encourage uniformity in states' drinking ages, was within constitutional bounds. The Court found that the legislation was in pursuit of "the general welfare," and that the means chosen to do so were reasonable. The Court also held that the Twenty-first Amendment's limitations on spending power were not prohibitions on congressional attempts to achieve federal objectives indirectly. The five percent loss of highway funds was not unduly coercive.

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Durham County

Mon, 06 Oct 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1021

Appellee

Durham County

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 85-1022

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 130 (1986)

Argued

Monday, October 6, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, December 9, 1986

Advocates

Erwin N. Griswold (on behalf of the appellant)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Durham County, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

None

Arizona v. Mauro

Tue, 31 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-2121

Petitioner

Arizona

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mauro

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 520 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, March 31, 1987

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1987

Advocates

Jack Roberts (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Kathleen Kelly Walsh (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Wimberly v. Labor & Industrial Rel. Comm'n

Tue, 09 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-129

Petitioner

Wimberly

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Labor & Industrial Rel. Comm'n

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 511 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, December 9, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, January 21, 1987

Advocates

Michael L. Boiccurt (on behalf of the respondents)

Julie S. Levin (on behalf of the petitioner)

Christopher J. Wright (as amicus curiae, supporting respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Labor & Industrial Rel. Comm'n, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 26 U.S.C. 3304

None

Hodel v. Irving

Mon, 06 Oct 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-637

Appellee

Irving

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hodel

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 704 (1987)

Argued

Monday, October 6, 1986

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1987

Advocates

Yvette Hall War Bonnett (on behalf of the appellees)

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Western Air Lines v. Board Of Equalization

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-732

Appellee

Board Of Equalization

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Western Air Lines

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 123 (1987)

Argued

Monday, November 3, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1987

Advocates

Mark V. Meierhenry (on behalf of Appellees)

Raymond J. Rasenberger (on behalf of Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Board Of Equalization, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 49 U.S.C. 1513

None

Cruz v. New York

Mon, 01 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-5939

Petitioner

Cruz

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 186 (1987)

Argued

Monday, December 1, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, April 21, 1987

Advocates

Peter D. Coddington (on behalf of the respondent)

Robert H. Klonoff (as amicus curiae, supporting respondent)

Robert S. Dean (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Cruz, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

None

McNally v. United States

Wed, 22 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-234

Petitioner

McNally

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Gray v. United States, No. 86-286

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 350 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, April 22, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, June 24, 1987

Advocates

Carter G. Phillips (on behalf of Petitioner)

Donald B. Ayer (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for McNally, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1341

None

FCC v. Florida Power Corp.

Wed, 03 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1658

Appellee

Florida Power Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Federal Communications Commission

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

Group W Cable, Inc., et al. v. Florida Power Corp. et al., No. 85-1660

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 245 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, December 3, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, February 25, 1987

Advocates

Jay E. Ricks (on behalf of the appellants)

Allan J. Topoi (on behalf of the appellees)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Solorio v. United States

Tue, 24 Feb 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1581

Petitioner

Solorio

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 435 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, February 24, 1987

Decided

Thursday, June 25, 1987

Advocates

Ribert W. Bruce, Jr. (on behalf of the petitioner)

Eugene R. Fidell (as amicus curiae supporting petitioner)

Charles Fried (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 14: Governance of the Armed Forces

None

Colorado v. Connelly

Wed, 08 Oct 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-660

Petitioner

Colorado

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Connelly

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 157 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, October 8, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, December 10, 1986

Advocates

Nathan B. Coats (on behalf of the petitioner)

Thomas M. Van Cleave, III (on behalf of respondent)

Andrew J. Pincus (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae in support of petitioner)

Facts of the Case

In 1983, Francis Connelly approached a police officer and, without any prompting, confessed to murder. The police officer immediately informed Connelly that he had the right to remain silent, but Connelly indicated that he still wished to discuss the murder. It was later discovered that Connelly was suffering from chronic schizophrenia at the time of the confession. A Colorado trial court suppressed the statements on the ground that they were made involuntarily.

Question

Did the taking of Connelly's statements as evidence violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Colorado, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

The Court held that because the taking of Connelly's statements as evidence did not involve any element of governmental coercion, no violation of the Due Process Clause occurred. The Court argued that suppressing statements in cases where suspects were not coerced would have no deterrent effect on future violations of the Constitution by the police. The Court noted that "Miranda protects defendants against government coercion leading them to surrender rights protected by the Fifth Amendment; it goes no further than that."

Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida

Wed, 10 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Florida Department of Labor

500 S Bronough St Tallahassee FL 32399

Tallahassee, FL 32399

United States

30° 26' 16.9116" N, 84° 17' 5.964" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-993

Appellee

Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Paula Hobbie

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 136 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, December 10, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, February 25, 1987

Advocates

Walter E. Carson (on behalf of the appellant)

John D. Maher (on behalf of the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Paula Hobbie worked for Lawton and Company, a Florida jewelry shop. She joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church and informed her employer that she could not work from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday since it was her new church's Sabbath day. Lawton soon dismissed her for refusing to work Friday evening and Saturday shifts. Hobbie filed for unemployment compensation with the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security. Lawton objected to paying benefits, claiming that she did qualify since she had been dismissed "for misconduct connected with her work." The Bureau of Unemployment Compensation agreed and denied her benefits. Hobbie claimed that this violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. She unsuccessfully appealed the decision in the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal.

Question

Did the state of Florida violate the Free Exercise Clause by denying unemployment benefits to an employee who was dismissed for refusing to work certain shifts because of conflicting religious obligations?

Conclusion

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

Yes. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. delivered the opinion for an 8-1 court. Referring to its similar decisions in Sherbert v. Verner and Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., the Court maintained that a state cannot deny unemployment benefits to an employee dismissed for having religious conflicts with the employer. This violates the Free Exercise Clause by pressuring religious adherents to modify their religious views in order to retain work or benefits. The state cannot do this without a compelling interest. The Court did not find it relevant that Hobbie converted after she began working, and did not consider the fact that she still qualified for partial benefits a satisfactory remedy.

Kentucky v. Stincer

Wed, 22 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-572

Petitioner

Kentucky

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stincer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 730 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, April 22, 1987

Decided

Friday, June 19, 1987

Advocates

Mark A. Posnansky (on behalf of Respondent)

Penny R. Warren (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Kentucky, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

None

Tyler Pipe Industries v. Dept. Of Revenue

Mon, 02 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1963

Appellee

Dept. Of Revenue

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Tyler Pipe Industries

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 85-2006

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 232 (1987)

Argued

Monday, March 2, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, June 23, 1987

Advocates

William B. Collins (on behalf of Appellants)

D. Michael Young (on behalf of Appellants in No. 85-2006)

Neil J. O'Brien (on behalf of Appellant in No. 85-1963)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Tyler Pipe Industries, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

New York v. Burger

Mon, 23 Feb 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-80

Petitioner

New York

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Burger

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 691 (1987)

Argued

Monday, February 23, 1987

Decided

Friday, June 19, 1987

Advocates

Stephen R. Mahler (on behalf of the Respondent)

Elizabeth Holtzman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ricketts v. Adamson

Wed, 01 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-6

Petitioner

Ricketts

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Adamson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 1 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, April 1, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1987

Advocates

Roy T. Englert, Jr. (as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioners)

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

Timothy K. Ford (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Ricketts, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

California Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Guerra

Wed, 08 Oct 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-494

Petitioner

California Federal S. & L. Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Guerra

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 272 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, October 8, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 1987

Advocates

Marian M. Johnston (on behalf of the Respondents)

Theodore B. Olson (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Guerra, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

United States v. General Dynamics Corp.

Tue, 13 Jan 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1385

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

General Dynamics Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 239 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, April 22, 1987

Advocates

Lynne E. Mc Nown (on behalf of the respondent)

Alan I. Horowitz (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: Internal Revenue Code

None

California v. Rooney

Wed, 25 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1835

Petitioner

California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rooney

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 307 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, March 25, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, June 23, 1987

Advocates

Arnold T. Guminski (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Arthur Lewis (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Rooney, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-2022

Appellee

Duffy

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

324 Liquor Corp.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 335 (1987)

Argued

Monday, November 3, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 1987

Advocates

W. Stephen Cannon (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae supporting appellant)

Bertram K. Kantor (on behalf of the appellant)

Christopher Keith Hall (on behalf of the appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for 324 Liquor Corp., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Brock v. Roadway Express, Inc.

Wed, 03 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1530

Appellee

Roadway Express, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Brock

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 252 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, December 3, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, April 22, 1987

Advocates

Michael C. Towers (on behalf of Appellee)

Andrew J. Pincus (on behalf of Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Roadway Express, Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

Split Vote

None

United States v. Johnson

Tue, 24 Feb 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-2039

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Johnson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 681 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, February 24, 1987

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1987

Advocates

Joel D. Eaton (on behalf of the Respondent)

Donald B. Ayer (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Tort Claims, or Alien Tort Statute

None

United States v. Cherokee Nation Of Okla.

Mon, 23 Feb 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1940

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cherokee Nation Of Okla.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 700 (1987)

Argued

Monday, February 23, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, March 31, 1987

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of the petitioner)

James Wilcoxen (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: Takings Clause

None

Cts Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. Of America

Mon, 02 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-71

Appellee

Dynamics Corp. Of America

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Cts Corp.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 86-97

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 69 (1987)

Argued

Monday, March 2, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, April 21, 1987

Advocates

John F. Pritchard (on behalf of Appellant Indiana)

James A. Strain (on behalf of Appellant CTS Corporation)

Lowell E. Sachnoff (on behalf of Appellee Dynamics Corporation of America, et al)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Cts Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos

Tue, 31 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Deseret Gymnasium

150 Salt Lake City UT 84111

Salt Lake City, UT 84111

United States

40° 46' 5.6496" N, 111° 53' 12.2208" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-179

Appellee

Amos

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Corporation of Presiding Bishop

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 86-401, United States v. Amos et al.

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 327 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, March 31, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, June 24, 1987

Advocates

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of appellants in No. 86-179)

William Bradford Reynolds (Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, on behalf of the United States in No. 86-401)

David B. Watkiss (on behalf of the appellees in both cases)

Facts of the Case

Two affiliate organizations of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints operated Deseret Gymnasium, a non-profit facility in Salt Lake City, Utah. These affiliates were the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CPB) and the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (COP). Arthur Frank Mayson worked for the Gymnasium for sixteen years as an engineer, but CPB and COP fired him when he failed to obtain a certificate authorizing him to attend the Church's religious temples. He filed a class-action lawsuit in District Court alleging that CPB and COP violated Section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by dismissing him from nonreligious employment because he did not satisfy certain religious conditions. In response, CPB and COP claimed that Section 702 of the Act, as amended in 1972, exempts religious organizations from the Act's ban in Section 703 on religious discrimination. Mayson then claimed that Section 702 violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by allowing religious organizations to practice discriminatory hiring for nonreligious jobs. The District Court agreed that Mayson's job was nonreligious. It also held that Section 702 violated the Establishment Clause because it allowed religious adherents exclusive participation in nonreligious activities.

Question

Does Section 702 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 violate the Establishment Clause by allowing religious employers to choose employees for nonreligious jobs based on their religion?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Corporation Of Presiding Bishop, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

No. Justice Byron R. White delivered the opinion for a unanimous court. The Establishment Clause forbids the government from using state mechanisms to advance a religion. Section 702 passed a three-part test the Court established in Lemon v. Kurtzman for determining whether a state action violates the Establishment Clause. To be valid, the state action must first promote a "secular legislative purpose." The Court found that Section 702 satisfied this criterion, since it ensured that the government would not determine for religious organizations what they could count as religious activities. Second, the state action can neither "advance nor inhibit religion." The Court held that for a violation of this standard to occur, the "Government itself must have advanced religion through its own activities and influence." In this case, the government allowed for a church to advance its religion but did not directly intervene. Third, the state action must not "entangle" church and state. By allowing religious organizations to employ whom they pleased, they state became less entangled in religion.

Houston v. Hill

Mon, 23 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-243

Appellee

Hill

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Houston

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 451 (1987)

Argued

Monday, March 23, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1987

Advocates

Robert J. Collins (on behalf of Appellant)

Charles Alan Wright (on behalf of Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Hill, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell

Mon, 12 Jan 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1239

Petitioner

Amoco Production Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gambell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 85-1406

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 531 (1987)

Argued

Monday, January 12, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1987

Advocates

Donald S. Cooper (on behalf of the respondents)

E. Edward Bruce (on behalf of the petitioners in No. 85-1239)

F. Henry Habicht, II (on behalf of the petitioners in No. 85-1406)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Amoco Production Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 16 U.S.C. 3120

None

N.C. Dept. Of Transp. v. Crest St. Council

Tue, 07 Oct 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-767

Petitioner

N.C. Dept. Of Transp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Crest St. Council

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 6 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, October 7, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, November 4, 1986

Advocates

Michael David Calhoun (on behalf of respondents)

Lacy H. Thornburg (on behalf of Petitioners)

Richard J. Lazarus (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 N.C. Dept. Of Transp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

Pennsylvania v. Ritchie

Wed, 03 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1347

Petitioner

Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ritchie

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 39 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, December 3, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1987

Advocates

Edward Marcus Clark (on behalf of the petitioner)

John H. Corbett, Jr. (as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Pennsylvania, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Kungys v. United States

Mon, 27 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-228

Petitioner

Kungys

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 759 (1988)

Argued

Monday, April 27, 1987

Reargued:

Tuesday, October 13, 1987

Decided

Monday, May 2, 1988

Advocates

Robert H. Klonoff (on behalf of the Respondent)

Donald J. Williamson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Kungys, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

United States v. Dunn

Tue, 20 Jan 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-998

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dunn

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 294 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, January 20, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, March 3, 1987

Advocates

Roy T. Englert, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Louis Dugas, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

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

O'connor v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-558

Petitioner

O'connor

Respondent

United States

Consolidation

No. 85-559

No. 85-560

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 27 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, October 14, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, November 4, 1986

Advocates

Carter G. Phillips (on behalf of Petitioners)

Jerrold J. Ganzfried (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Burlington No. R. Co. v. Okla. Tax Comm'n

Wed, 25 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-337

Petitioner

Burlington No. R. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Okla. Tax Comm'n

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 454 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, March 25, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, April 28, 1987

Advocates

Betty Jo Christian (on behalf of Petitioner)

David W. Lee (on behalf of Respondent)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Burlington No. R. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 49 U.S.C. 1150

None

Ins v. Cardoza-Fonseca

Tue, 07 Oct 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-782

Petitioner

Ins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cardoza-Fonseca

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 421 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, October 7, 1986

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1987

Advocates

Dana Marks Keener (on behalf of Respondent)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Cardoza-Fonseca, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Tashjian v. Republican Party Of Connecticut

Wed, 08 Oct 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-766

Appellee

Republican Party Of Connecticut

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Tashjian

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 208 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, October 8, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, December 10, 1986

Advocates

Elliot F. Gerson (on behalf of the Appellant)

David S. Golub (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Republican Party Of Connecticut, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

None

Hitchcock v. Dugger

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-6756

Petitioner

Hitchcock

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dugger

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 393 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, October 15, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, April 22, 1987

Advocates

Craig S. Barnard (on behalf of Petitioner)

Sean Daly (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Commissioner v. Groetzinger

Mon, 08 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1226

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Groetzinger

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 23 (1987)

Argued

Monday, December 8, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1987

Advocates

Carroll Baymiller (on behalf of the respondent)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Groetzinger, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Johnson v. Transportation Agency

Wed, 12 Nov 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Location

The Transportation Agency

331 North First Street San Jose CA 95134

San Jose, CA 95134

United States

37° 20' 27.4164" N, 121° 53' 39.3" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1129

Petitioner

Johnson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Transportation Agency

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 616 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, November 12, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1987

Advocates

Constance E. Brooks (on behalf of Petitioner)

Steven Woodside (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

The Transportation Agency, Santa Clara, California promoted Diane Joyce to road dispatcher over Paul Johnson. Both candidates were qualified for the job. As an affirmative action employer, the Agency took into account the sex of the applicants in making the promotion decision.

Question

Did the Agency impermissibly take into account the sex of the applicants in the promotion process and violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Transportation Agency, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

The Court affirmed the promotion procedures of the Agency. Justice Brennan argued that it was not unreasonable to consider sex as one factor among many in making promotion decisions, and that the Agency's actions did not create an absolute barrier to the advancement of men (a quota system did not exist).

Meese v. Keene

Tue, 02 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1180

Appellee

Keene

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Meese

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 465 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, December 2, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, April 28, 1987

Advocates

John G. Donhoff (on behalf of Appellee)

Donald B. Ayer (on behalf of Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Meese, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 22 U.S.C. 611

None

Texas v. New Mexico

Wed, 29 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

65 ORIG

Plaintiff

Texas

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

New Mexico

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 124 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, April 29, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1987

Advocates

Charlotte Uram (on behalf of the plaintiff)

Renea Hicks (on behalf of the defendant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Rock v. Arkansas

Mon, 23 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-130

Petitioner

Rock

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arkansas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 44 (1987)

Argued

Monday, March 23, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1987

Advocates

J. Steven Clark (on behalf of Respondent)

James M. Luffman (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Tison v. Arizona

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-6075

Petitioner

Tison

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arizona

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 137 (1987)

Argued

Monday, November 3, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, April 21, 1987

Advocates

William J. Schafer III (appointed by this Court)

Alan M. Dershowitz ()

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Tison, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

None

Maryland v. Garrison

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-759

Petitioner

Maryland

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Garrison

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 79 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, November 5, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1987

Advocates

Gerald A. Kroop (on behalf of the respondent)

Stephen H. Sachs (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Scheiner

Tue, 28 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-357

Appellee

Scheiner

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

American Trucking Associations, Inc.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 266 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, April 28, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, June 23, 1987

Advocates

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

Suellen M. Wolfe (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

One of the types of fees that Pennsylvania used to finance the cost of its highway maintenance was lump-sum annual fees, also known as flat taxes. In 1980, Pennsylvania increased the fee for an identification marker required of every truck over a certain weight from $2 to $25, but exempted trucks registered in Pennsylvania from the fee _ the marker fee was "deemed" to be included in the registration fee that local truckers had to pay. In 1982, the marker tax was reduced to $5, but a new tax was introduced, taxing trucks by the axle. The axle tax applied to all trucks weighing more than 26,000 pounds, but the registration fee for Pennsylvania trucks was reduced in an amount calculated to offset that new tax for most trucks. These flat taxes were contested in two state court cases on the ground, inter alia, that they violated the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution. Since Pennsylvania- based trucks travel, on average, about five times as many miles in Pennsylvania as out-of-state trucks, the cost of the flat taxes was approximately five times as high per mile of road use for out-of-state vehicles as for local vehicles. For that reason, the lower courts in Pennsylvania found that both the marker tax and the axle tax violated the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania considered both cases together and reversed.

Question

Do flat state taxes on the use of a state's highways run afoul of the Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for American Trucking Associations, Inc., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the flat taxes violated the basic principle that the Commerce Clause created an area of trade free from interference by the states. One problem with the flat taxes is that they do not pass the "internal consistency" test, which is to say that they could not be applied by every state without interfering with free trade. If many states adopted them, truckers would pay more to go through those states than to drive the same distance in only one state. This would disrupt the market for interstate transportation services. In addition, because the cost to out-of- state truckers is approximately five times as heavy per mile, the taxes have a discriminatory effect. It is no defense that Pennsylvania's registration fee is fairly high, conferring a competitive advantage to trucks based in other states; the solution to that problem is to lower the level of the registration fee. It is also no defense to describe the flat taxes as user fees because such fees are acceptable only insofar as they are neither discriminatory nor excessive. Finally, Pennsylvania cannot appeal to administrative convenience because it has shown itself capable of administering taxes that reflect the quantity of highway use.

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor

Wed, 21 Jan 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-686

Petitioner

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Taylor

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 85-688

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 58 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, January 21, 1987

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1987

Advocates

Peter Edward Scheer (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. John Doe, Inc. I

Mon, 12 Jan 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1613

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

John Doe, Inc. I

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 102 (1987)

Argued

Monday, January 12, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, April 21, 1987

Advocates

Louis R. Cohen (on behalf of Petitioner)

Paul R. Grand (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Connecticut v. Barrett

Tue, 09 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-899

Petitioner

Connecticut

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Barrett

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 523 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, December 9, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, January 27, 1987

Advocates

Charles A. Rothfeld (as amicus curiae, supporting petitioner)

Julia Dicocco Dewey (on behalf of the petitioner)

Robert L. Genuario (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Connecticut, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miranda Warnings

None

O'lone v. Estate Of Shabazz

Tue, 24 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1722

Petitioner

O'lone

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Estate Of Shabazz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 342 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, March 24, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, June 9, 1987

Advocates

Roger Clegg (amicus curiae, supporting petitioners)

James Katz (on behalf of the respondents)

Laurie M. Hodian (on behalf of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for O'lone, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Free Exercise of Religion

None

Tull v. United States

Wed, 21 Jan 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1259

Petitioner

Tull

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 412 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, January 21, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, April 28, 1987

Advocates

Richard N. Nageotte (on behalf of Petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Tull, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 7: Seventh Amendment

None

Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co.

Wed, 01 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1626

Petitioner

Goodman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lukens Steel Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 85-2010

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 656 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, April 1, 1987

Decided

Friday, June 19, 1987

Advocates

William H. Ewing (on behalf of respondents Goodman, et al., in No. 85-2010 and petitioners No. 85-1626)

Robert M. Weinberg (on behalf of the Petitioners in No. 85-2010 and respondent Union in No. 85-1626)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Lukens Steel Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assocs.

Tue, 21 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-497

Petitioner

Agency Holding Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Malley-Duff & Assocs.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Crown Life Insurance Co. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc., No. 86-531

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 143 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, April 21, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1987

Advocates

John H. Bingler, Jr. (on behalf of Petitioner)

Henry Woodruff Turner (on behalf of Respondent)

Robert L. Frantz (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Malley-Duff & Assocs., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

None

Lynaugh v. Petty

Tue, 03 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1656

Petitioner

Lynaugh

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Petty

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 699 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, March 3, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1987

Advocates

John R. Breihan (on behalf of the respondent, appointed by this Court)

Charles A. Palmer (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Pleasant Grove v. United States

Wed, 10 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1244

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Pleasant Grove

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 462 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, December 10, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, January 21, 1987

Advocates

Thomas G. Corcoran, Jr. (on behalf of the appellant)

Jerrold J. Ganzfried (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

None

Missouri v. Blair

Wed, 12 Nov 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-303

Petitioner

Missouri

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Blair

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 698 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, November 12, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1987

Advocates

Albert A. Riederer (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Joseph Locascio (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Atchison T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Buell

Mon, 01 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1140

Petitioner

Atchison T. & S. F. R. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Buell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 557 (1987)

Argued

Monday, December 1, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1987

Advocates

James R. Mc Call (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 Buell, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Employers' Liability

None

Hewitt v. Helms

Wed, 04 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1630

Petitioner

Hewitt

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Helms

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 755 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, March 4, 1987

Decided

Friday, June 19, 1987

Advocates

Robert Harold Vesely (on behalf of the Respondents)

Thomas G. Saylor, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Lawrence G. Wallace (as amicus curiae supporting Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hewitt, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus

Tue, 03 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-104

Petitioner

Airport Commissioners

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jews for Jesus

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 569 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, March 3, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1987

Advocates

James R. Kapel (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Jay A. Sekulow (Argued the cause pro hac vice for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

The Board of Airport Commissioners of Los Angeles adopted an ordinance which prohibited all "First Amendment activities" in the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Alan Snyder, a minister with Jews for Jesus, was instructed by an airport officer to refrain from distributing free religious literature on a walkway in the central terminal of LAX.

Question

Did the Los Angeles ordinance violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution?

Conclusion

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

Yes. Using the "First Amendment overbreadth doctrine," which allows an individual to challenge a statute on its face which is potentially threatening to others, the Court found that the ordinance violated the Constitution. Justice O'Connor argued that the rule was vague, overly broad, and would have effectively prohibited activities such as reading, talking, or wearing expressive shirts or political buttons in the LAX terminal. Allowing such an ordinance, which touched "the universe of expressive activity" in its totality, would have caused LAX to become a "First Amendment Free Zone," according to O'Connor.

Martin v. Ohio

Tue, 02 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-6461

Petitioner

Martin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ohio

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 228 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, December 2, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, February 25, 1987

Advocates

George J. Sadd (on behalf of the Respondent)

James R. Willis (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Hohri

Mon, 20 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-510

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hohri

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 64 (1987)

Argued

Monday, April 20, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1987

Advocates

Benjamin L. Zelenko (on behalf of Respondent)

Charles Fried (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

United States v. Salerno

Wed, 21 Jan 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-87

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Salerno

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 739 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, January 21, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, May 26, 1987

Advocates

Anthony M. Cardinale (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Charles Fried (Argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

The 1984 Bail Reform Act allowed the federal courts to detain an arrestee prior to trial if the government could prove that the individual was potentially dangerous to other people in the community. Prosecutors alleged that Salerno and another person in this case were prominent figures in the La Cosa Nostra crime family.

Question

Did the Bail Reform Act violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 3141

The Court held that the Act was constitutional because when the government's interest in protecting the community outweighs individual liberty, pre-trial detention can be "a potential solution to a pressing societal problem." The Act only applied to a specific list of serious offenses, placed heavy burdens on the government to prove that the arrestee posed significant threats to others, and did not prevent the accused from enjoying a speedy trial. The Court also dismissed Salerno's argument that the Act violated the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment.

Ray v. United States

Tue, 28 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-281

Petitioner

Ray

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 736 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, April 28, 1987

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1987

Advocates

Joseph A. Connors, III (on behalf of the petitioner)

William C. Bryson (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bowen v. Yuckert

Tue, 13 Jan 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1409

Petitioner

Bowen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yuckert

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 137 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1987

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the petitioner)

Carole F. Grossman (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Bowen, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

None

Rockford Life Ins. Co. v. Ill. Dept. Of Re

Tue, 31 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-251

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Rockford Life Ins. Co. v. Ill. Dept. Of Re

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 182 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, March 31, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1987

Advocates

Patricia Rosen (on behalf of Appellees)

Erwin N. Griswold (on behalf of Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Ill. Dept. Of Re, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 31 U.S.C. 3124

None

United States v. Stanley

Tue, 21 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-393

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stanley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 669 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, April 21, 1987

Decided

Thursday, June 25, 1987

Advocates

Richard A. Kupfer (on behalf of the respondents)

Christopher J. Wright (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: 28 U.S.C. 1292

None

Richardson v. Marsh

Wed, 14 Jan 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1433

Petitioner

Richardson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Marsh

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 200 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, April 21, 1987

Advocates

Timothy A. Baughman (on behalf of Petitioner)

Lawrence S. Robbins (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae, in support of Petitioner)

R. Steven Whalen (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Richardson, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

None

West Virginia v. United States

Mon, 10 Nov 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-937

Petitioner

West Virginia

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 305 (1987)

Argued

Monday, November 10, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 1987

Advocates

Charles G. Brown (on behalf of the petitioner)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

San Francisco Arts & Athletics v. US Olympic Committee

Tue, 24 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-270

Petitioner

San Francisco Arts & Athletics

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

US Olympic Committee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 522 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, March 24, 1987

Decided

Thursday, June 25, 1987

Advocates

John G. Kester (on behalf of Respondents)

Mary C. Dunlap (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Currently unavailable.

Question

Currently unavailable.

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for US Olympic Committee, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 36 U.S.C. 380

Currently unavailable.

California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co.

Tue, 02 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1200

Appellee

Granite Rock Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

California Coastal Comm'n

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 572 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, December 2, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1987

Advocates

Barbara R. Banke (on behalf of Appellee)

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae, supporting Appellee)

Linus Masouredis (on behalf of Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for California Coastal Comm'n, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1254

None

Greer v. Miller

Mon, 27 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-2064

Petitioner

Greer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Miller

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 756 (1987)

Argued

Monday, April 27, 1987

Decided

Friday, June 26, 1987

Advocates

Mark L. Rotert (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Gary R. Peterson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb

Wed, 25 Feb 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-2156

Petitioner

Shaare Tefila Congregation

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cobb

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 615 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, February 25, 1987

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1987

Advocates

Patricia A. Brannan (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Deborah T. Garren (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

After its Maryland synagogue was painted with anti-Semitic slogans and symbols, the Shaare Tefila Congregation brought a suit charging the white defendants with racially discriminatory interference with property rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1982. The Maryland District Court dismissed the claims, maintaining that white-on-white violence was not racially discriminatory.

Question

Did the white defendants exhibit racially motivated discrimination in violation of the federal statute?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Shaare Tefila Congregation, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1982)

Yes. The Court unanimously ruled that Jews can state a claim of racial discrimination since they were among the peoples considered to be distinct races and hence within the protection of U.S.C. Section 1982. The statute "was intended to protect from discrimination identifiable classes of persons who are subjected to intentional discrimination solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics." The Jewish people most certainly suffered such discrimination and so were not barred from their claim simply because both they, like the defendants, were Caucasian.

Colorado v. Spring

Tue, 09 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1517

Petitioner

Colorado

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Spring

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 564 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, December 9, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, January 27, 1987

Advocates

Seth Jeremy Benezra (on behalf of the Respondent)

Lawrence S. Robbins (as amicus curiae supporting petitioner)

Maureen Phelan (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Colorado, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Frazier v. Heebe

Wed, 29 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-475

Petitioner

Frazier

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Heebe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 641 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, April 29, 1987

Decided

Friday, June 19, 1987

Advocates

Curtis R. Boisfontaine (on behalf of the Respondents)

Cornish F. Hitchcock (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Clarke v. Securities Industry Assn.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-971

Petitioner

Clarke

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Securities Industry Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 85-972

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 388 (1987)

Argued

Monday, November 3, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, January 14, 1987

Advocates

William T. Coleman, Jr. (on behalf of petitioner in No. 972)

Charles A. Rothfeld (on behalf of the petitioner in No. 85-971)

James B. Weidner (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Clarke, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 81

None

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

Mon, 30 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Faria Beach Ventura County, CA

United States

34° 19' 5.9484" N, 119° 23' 16.1376" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-133

Petitioner

California Coastal Commission

Respondent

Nollan

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 825 (1987)

Argued

Monday, March 30, 1987

Decided

Friday, June 26, 1987

Advocates

Robert K. Best (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Andrea Sheridan Ordin (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

The California Coastal Commission required owners of beachfront property wishing to obtain a building permit to maintain a pathway on their property open to the public.

Question

Did the requirement constitute a property taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

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

Yes. The Court agreed that a legitimate interest may be served by maintaining a "continuous strip of publicly accessible beach along the coast." However, reasoned Justice Scalia, if California wished to use its power of eminent domain to do so, it must provide just compensation to the Nollans and other beachfront property owners for the public use of their land.

O'Connor v. Ortega

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-530

Petitioner

O'Connor

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ortega

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 709 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, October 15, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, March 31, 1987

Advocates

Joel I. Klein (By invitation of the Court, argued the cause as amicus curiae in support of the judgment below)

Jeffrey T. Miller (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

In 1981, officials at a hospital, including Executive Director Dr. Dennis O'Connor, suspected improprieties in Dr. Ortega's management of a residency program. The officials conducted an investigation of Ortega, which included multiple searches of his office and seizure of a number of items. The items were later used in proceedings before the California State Personnel Board to impeach the credibility of witnesses that testified on Dr. Ortega's behalf.

Question

Did the supervisor's search of the office violate Dr. Ortega's "reasonable expectation of privacy" guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that "the realities of the workplace" made some expectations of privacy among public employees unreasonable when the intrusion was by a supervisor rather than a law enforcement official. Work- related searches, the Court found, were "merely incident to the primary business of the agency," and a warrant requirement would "seriously disrupt the routine conduct of business." The Court thus held that a standard of "reasonableness" was sufficient for work-related intrusions by public employers.

Utah Div. Of State Lands v. United States

Mon, 23 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1772

Petitioner

Utah Div. Of State Lands

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 193 (1987)

Argued

Monday, March 23, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1987

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the respondent)

Dallin W. Jensen (on behalf of petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Utah Div. Of State Lands, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 25 Stat. 505

None

PBGC v. Yahn & McDonnell, Inc.

Mon, 27 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-231

Petitioner

PBGC

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yahn & McDonnell, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

United Retail & Wholesale Employees Teamsters Union Local No. 115 Pension Plan v. Yahn & McDonnell, Inc., No. 86-253

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 735 (1987)

Argued

Monday, April 27, 1987

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1987

Advocates

Carl L. Taylor (on behalf of the appellees)

Gary M. Ford (on behalf of the appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Yahn & McDonnell, Inc., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Lukhard v. Reed

Wed, 14 Jan 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1358

Petitioner

Lukhard

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reed

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 368 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, April 22, 1987

Advocates

Thomas J. Czelusta (on behalf of the petitioner)

Glen D. Nager (pro hac vice, respondent Secretary of H&HS in support of petitioner)

Jill A. Hanken (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Lukhard, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Rotary Int. v. Rotary Club

Mon, 30 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-421

Appellee

Rotary Club

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Rotary Int.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 537 (1987)

Argued

Monday, March 30, 1987

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1987

Advocates

Judith Resnik (Argued the cause for the appellees)

William P. Sutter (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Marian M. Johnston (Argued the cause for intervenor State of California)

Facts of the Case

When the Duarte chapter of Rotary International violated club policy by admitting three women into its active membership its charter was revoked and it was expelled. The California Court of Appeals, however, in reversing a lower court decision, found that Rotary International's action violated a California civil rights act prohibiting sexual discrimination.

Question

Did a law which required California Rotary Clubs to admit women members violate Rotary International's First Amendment rights of association?

Conclusion

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

No. Considering the size, purpose, selectivity, and exclusivity of Rotary's membership, the Court found that the relationship among the club's members was not of the intimate or private variety which warrants First Amendment protection. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice Powell argued that because many of Rotary's activities (including their meetings) are conducted in the presence of strangers, and because women members would not prevent the club from carrying out its purposes, there was no violation of associational rights. Furthermore, even if there were a slight encroachment on the rights of Rotarians to associate, that minimal infringement would be justified since it "serves the State's compelling interest" in ending sexual discrimination.

Edwards v. Aguillard

Wed, 10 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Louisiana General Assembly

900 North Third Street Baton Rouge LA 70804

Baton Rouge, LA 70804

United States

30° 27' 19.6488" N, 91° 11' 18.5892" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1513

Appellee

Aguillard

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Edwards

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 578 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, December 10, 1986

Decided

Friday, June 19, 1987

Advocates

Wendell R. Bird (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Jay Topkis (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

A Louisiana law entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act" prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in the public schools unless that instruction was accompanied by the teaching of creation science, a Biblical belief that advanced forms of life appeared abruptly on Earth. Schools were not forced to teach creation science. However, if either topic was to be addressed, evolution or creation, teachers were obligated to discuss the other as well.

Question

Did the Louisiana law, which mandated the teaching of "creation science" along with the theory of evolution, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Aguillard, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

Yes. The Court held that the law violated the Constitution. Using the three- pronged test that the Court had developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) to evaluate potential violations of the Establishment Clause, Justice Brennan argued that Louisiana's law failed on all three prongs of the test. First, it was not enacted to further a clear secular purpose. Second, the primary effect of the law was to advance the viewpoint that a "supernatural being created humankind," a doctrine central to the dogmas of certain religious denominations. Third, the law significantly entangled the interests of church and state by seeking "the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose."

Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc.

Mon, 12 Jan 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1798

Appellee

Texaco Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Pennzoil Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 1 (1987)

Argued

Monday, January 12, 1987

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1987

Advocates

David Boies (on behalf of Appellee)

Laurence H. Tribe (on behalf of Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Pennzoil Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji

Wed, 25 Feb 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-2169

Petitioner

Saint Francis College

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Al-Khazraji

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 604 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, February 25, 1987

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1987

Advocates

Caroline Mitchell (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Nick S. Fisfis (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Al-Khazraji, a professor and U.S. citizen born in Iraq, filed suit against his former employer and its tenure committee for denying him tenure on the basis of his Arabian race in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. The District Court held that while Al-Kharzraji had properly alleged racial discrimination, the record was insufficient to determine whether he had been subjected to prejudice.

Question

Did 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 apply to Arab minorities?

Conclusion

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

Yes. The Court held that persons of Arabian ancestry were protected from racial discrimination under Section 1981. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Byron R. White maintained that section 1981 encompassed discrimination even among Caucasians. Justice White noted that history did not support the claim that Arabs and other present-day "Caucasians" were considered to be a single race for the purposes of section 1981. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., in a separate concurrence, added that "Pernicious distinctions among individuals based solely on their ancestry are antithetical to the doctrine of equality upon which this nation is founded."

Pope v. Illinois

Tue, 24 Feb 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1973

Petitioner

Pope

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 497 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, February 24, 1987

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1987

Advocates

Glenn A. Stanko (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Sally Louise Dilgart (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB

Mon, 02 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1208

Petitioner

Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 27 (1987)

Argued

Monday, March 2, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1987

Advocates

Louis R. Cohen (on behalf of the Respondent)

Ira Drogin (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Kelly v. Robinson

Wed, 08 Oct 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1033

Petitioner

Kelly

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Robinson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 36 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, October 8, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, November 12, 1986

Advocates

Carl J. Schuman (on behalf of Petitioners)

Francis X. Dineen (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Kelly, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Pennsylvania v. Finley

Mon, 02 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-2099

Petitioner

Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Finley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 551 (1987)

Argued

Monday, March 2, 1987

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1987

Advocates

Gaele M. Barthold (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Catherine M. Harper (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Pennsylvania, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Sumner v. Shuman

Mon, 20 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-246

Petitioner

Sumner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shuman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 66 (1987)

Argued

Monday, April 20, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1987

Advocates

M. Daniel Markoff (on behalf of the Respondent)

D. Brian McKay (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Booth v. Maryland

Tue, 24 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-5020

Petitioner

Booth

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maryland

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 496 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, March 24, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1987

Advocates

George E. Burns, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Charles O. Monk, II (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

John Booth was convicted of the murders of an elderly couple and chose to have the jury determine his sentence instead of the judge. A Maryland statute required that a victim impact statement "describing the effect of the crime on the victim and his family" be included in the pre-sentence report in felony cases. In this case, the victim impact statement described the victims, the impact of the crime on their family, and the family members' opinions of the defendant and the crime.

Question

Does the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects a defendant from cruel and unusual punishment, prohibit a jury from considering a victim impact statement during the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Booth, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Yes. The Court found that the victim impact statement created "a constitutionally unacceptable risk" and violated the Eighth Amendment. Justice Powell argued that in a capital case, the jury's sentencing task is based on the defendant as a unique individual and not on the character or impact of the crime on the victim's family. Allowing the content of a victim impact statement to influence the jury could lead it to choose the death penalty for reasons which "were irrelevant to the [defendant's] decision to kill," thus diverting attention from the facts of the crime. Furthermore, concluded Powell, introducing the "emotionally-charged opinions" of family members into the process would erode the "reasoned decisionmaking" which is crucial in capital cases.

Rivera v. Minnich

Wed, 25 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-98

Appellee

Minnich

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Rivera

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 574 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, March 25, 1987

Decided

Thursday, June 25, 1987

Advocates

William Watt Campbell (on behalf of the Appellant)

Mary Louise Barton (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

California v. Superior Court Of California

Wed, 22 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-381

Petitioner

California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Superior Court Of California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 400 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, April 22, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, June 9, 1987

Advocates

Dennis P. Riordan (on behalf of Respondent)

J. Robert Jibson (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for California, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 3182

None

Colorado v. Bertine

Mon, 10 Nov 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-889

Petitioner

Colorado

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bertine

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 367 (1987)

Argued

Monday, November 10, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, January 14, 1987

Advocates

John M. Haried (on behalf of Petitioner)

Cary C. Lacklen (on behalf of Respondent)

Richard J. Lazarus (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

First Eng. Evan. Luth. Church v. Los Angeles

Wed, 14 Jan 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1199

Appellee

Los Angeles

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

First Eng. Evan. Luth. Church

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 304 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, June 9, 1987

Advocates

Michael M. Berger (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Jack R. White (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

In 1979, the County of Los Angeles passed an ordinance which prohibited construction or reconstruction on land which had been devastated by a flood one year earlier. The First English Evangelical Lutheran Church owned a campground which was affected by this ordinance and it was not allowed to reconstruct buildings on this land which the flood had destroyed.

Question

Did the ordinance violate the Fifth Amendment (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth) which prevents government from taking private property for public use without providing just compensation to the owner of the property?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for First Eng. Evan. Luth. Church, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

The Court held that the ordinance violated the Constitution. Noting that the fate of the Church's property had been in limbo for over six years (the suit which it had filed in 1979 had been denied a hearing as late as October of 1985), Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that, because the church was unable to use its property during this time, a "taking" of the property had occurred. Thus, the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment required the government to exercise one of a number of "options" such as amending the regulation or fair payment for the use of the property in order to protect the Church's constitutional rights.

Springfield v. Kibbe

Tue, 04 Nov 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1217

Petitioner

Springfield

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kibbe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 257 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, November 4, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, February 25, 1987

Advocates

Terry Scott Nagel ()

Edward M. Pikula ()

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Kibbe, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Burke v. Barnes

Tue, 04 Nov 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-781

Petitioner

Burke

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Barnes

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 361 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, November 4, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, January 14, 1987

Advocates

Morgan J. Frankel (on behalf of Respondents)

Richard K. Willard (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Burke, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Arizona v. Hicks

Mon, 08 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Apartment of Hicks

13024 North 22nd Street Phoenix AZ 85022

Phoenix, AZ 85022

United States

33° 36' 18.5112" N, 112° 2' 5.9748" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1027

Petitioner

Arizona

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hicks

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 321 (1987)

Argued

Monday, December 8, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, March 3, 1987

Advocates

John W. Rood, III (By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the respondent)

Linda A. Akers (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

A bullet was fired through the floor of Hicks's apartment which injured a man in the apartment below. To investigate the shooting, police officers entered Hicks's apartment and found three weapons along with a stocking mask. During the search, which was done without a warrant, an officer noticed some expensive stereo equipment which he suspected had been stolen. The officer moved some of the components, recorded their serial numbers, and seized them upon learning from police headquarters that his suspicions were correct.

Question

Was the search of the stereo equipment (a search beyond the exigencies of the original entry) reasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

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

No. The Court found that the search and seizure of the stereo equipment violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Citing the Court's holding in Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), Justice Scalia upheld the "plain view" doctrine which allows police officers under some circumstances to seize evidence in plain view without a warrant. However, critical to this doctrine, argued Scalia, is the requirement that warrantless seizures which rely on no "special operational necessities" be done with probable cause. Since the officer who seized the stereo equipment had only a "reasonable suspicion" and not a "probable cause" to believe that the equipment was stolen, the officer's actions were not reconcilable with the Constitution.

Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock

Mon, 01 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-920

Petitioner

Alaska Airlines, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brock

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 678 (1987)

Argued

Monday, December 1, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1987

Advocates

Louis R. Cohen (on behalf of the Respondents)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Brock, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 49 U.S.C. 1552

None

Hilton v. Braunskill

Wed, 25 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-108

Petitioner

Hilton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Braunskill

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 770 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, March 25, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, May 26, 1987

Advocates

John G. Holl (on behalf of Petitioners)

Mark H. Friedman (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Icc v. Locomotive Engineers

Mon, 10 Nov 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-792

Petitioner

Icc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Locomotive Engineers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 85-793

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 270 (1987)

Argued

Monday, November 10, 1986

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1987

Advocates

John O'B. Clarke, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent United Transportation Union)

Joseph L. Manson, III (on behalf of the Petitioner MC-KS-TX Railroad)

Henri F. Rush, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner ICC)

Harold A. Ross (on behalf of the Respondnet Brotherhood/Locomotive Engineers)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Icc, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2341

None

Burlington No. R. Co. v. Maintenance Employes

Mon, 23 Feb 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-39

Petitioner

Burlington No. R. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maintenance Employes

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 429 (1987)

Argued

Monday, February 23, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, April 28, 1987

Advocates

John O'B. Clarke, Jr. (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 Maintenance Employes, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Railway Labor

None

Rankin v. McPherson

Mon, 23 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-2068

Petitioner

Rankin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

McPherson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 378 (1987)

Argued

Monday, March 23, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, June 24, 1987

Advocates

Lloyd N. Cutler (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Glen D. Nager (Argued the cause pro hac vice for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Billy E. Lee (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Ardith McPherson was a clerical employee in the Harris County, Texas constable's office. After hearing on the office radio that there had been an attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan, McPherson, who thought she was alone with one other office worker, stated "if they go for him again, I hope they get him." Another co-worker overheard the comment and reported it to the Constable, Walter H. Rankin. Rankin subsequently fired McPherson.

Question

Did the Constable's action infringe upon McPherson's freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment?

Conclusion

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

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that Rankin's interest in discharging McPherson was outweighed by her rights under the First Amendment. The Court held that McPherson's statement, when considered in context, "plainly dealt with a matter of public concern." The Court found that there was no evidence that McPherson's speech interfered with "the efficient functioning of the office" and that her private comment had not discredited the office. The Court also noted that McPherson did not serve a "confidential, policymaking, or public contact" role, diminishing the impact of her speech on the agency's proper functioning.

Jersey Shore State Bank v. United States

Mon, 08 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1736

Petitioner

Jersey Shore State Bank

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 442 (1987)

Argued

Monday, December 8, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, January 20, 1987

Advocates

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of Respondent)

Martin A. Flayhart (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

Granberry v. Greer

Tue, 24 Feb 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-6790

Petitioner

Granberry

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Greer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 129 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, February 24, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, April 21, 1987

Advocates

Howard B. Eisenberg (on behalf of the petitioner, appointed by this Court)

Marcia L. Friedl (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. Laplante

Mon, 01 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1589

Petitioner

Iowa Mutual Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Laplante

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 9 (1987)

Argued

Monday, December 1, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1987

Advocates

Joe R. Bottomly (on behalf of the respondent)

Maxon R. Davis (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Iowa Mutual Ins. Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1322

None

Griffith v. Kentucky

Tue, 14 Oct 1986 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.

85-5221

Petitioner

Griffith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kentucky

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 85-5731

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 314 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, October 14, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 1987

Advocates

William C. Bryson (Argued the cause for the United States)

Paul W. Richwalsky, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondent in Griffith v. Kentucky)

Fred Haddad (Argued the cause for the petitioner in Brown v. United States)

J. Vincent Aprile, II (Argued the cause for the petitioner in Griffith v. Kentucky)

Facts of the Case

This case concerned the retrospective application of judge-made rules. Specifically, the Court had to decide whether a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude black jurors, combined with his call to the jury clerk, violated the black petitioner's right to an impartial jury. The Court was called upon to decide whether the previous decision in Batson v. Kentucky was applicable to pending litigation but not final when Batson was decided. This case was decided together with Brown v. United States.

Question

Could retroactive Supreme Court decisions be applied selectively to cases pending direct review or not yet final?

Conclusion

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

The Court held that after a new rule had been decided in a particular case, "the integrity of judicial review requires that we apply that rule to all similar cases pending on direct review." The Court reasoned that selective application of new rules violated the principle of treating similarly situated defendants on an equal basis. The Court also refused to make an exception to the rule of retroactivity in cases where there was a "clean break" with past precedent.

Griffin v. Wisconsin

Mon, 20 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-5324

Petitioner

Griffin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wisconsin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 868 (1987)

Argued

Monday, April 20, 1987

Decided

Friday, June 26, 1987

Advocates

Alan G. Habermehl (on behalf of Petitioner)

Barry M. Levenson (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

NLRB v. Electrical Workers

Wed, 25 Feb 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1924

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Electrical Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 573 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, February 25, 1987

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1987

Advocates

Laurence J. Cohen (on behalf of the Respondent)

Jerrold J. Ganzfried (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ansonia Board Of Education v. Philbrook

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-495

Petitioner

Ansonia Board Of Education

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Philbrook

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 60 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, October 14, 1986

Decided

Monday, November 17, 1986

Advocates

Robert F. McWeeny (for respondent Ansonia Federation of Teachers in support of petitioners)

David N. Rosen (on behalf of respondents)

Thomas P. Sullivan (on behalf of the petitioners)

Charles Fried (for the United States and EEOC, as amici curiae, in support of respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Ansonia Board Of Education, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

Split Vote

None

Shearson/American Express Inc. v. Mcmahon

Tue, 03 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-44

Petitioner

Shearson/American Express Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mcmahon

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 220 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, March 3, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1987

Advocates

Theodore Grant Eppenstein (on behalf of the respondents)

Theodore A. Krebsbach (on behalf of the petitioners)

Richard G. Taranto (as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Shearson/American Express Inc., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 9 U.S.C. 1

None

Rose v. Rose

Wed, 04 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1206

Appellee

Rose

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Rose

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 619 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, March 4, 1987

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1987

Advocates

Roger Clegg (as amicus curiae, supporting Appellant)

W. J. Michael Cody (on behalf of Appellee Tennessee)

Howell H. Sherrod, Jr. (on behalf of Appellee Rose)

Jerry S. Jones (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Rose, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Van Drasek v. Webb

Wed, 29 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-319

Petitioner

Van Drasek

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Webb

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 738 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, April 29, 1987

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1987

Advocates

Michael K. Kellogg (on behalf of the Respondent)

Stephen G. Milliken (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Fec v. Massachusetts Citizens For Life, Inc.

Tue, 07 Oct 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-701

Appellee

Massachusetts Citizens For Life, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Fec

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 238 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, October 7, 1986

Decided

Monday, December 15, 1986

Advocates

Charles N. Steele (on behalf of Appellant)

Francis H. Fox (on behalf of Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Massachusetts Citizens For Life, Inc., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Election Campaign

None

Cerbone v. Conway

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1947

Petitioner

Cerbone

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Conway

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 84 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, November 5, 1986

Decided

Monday, November 17, 1986

Advocates

Michael F. Close (on behalf of the Petitioners)

George Russel Miller (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

West v. Conrail

Wed, 25 Feb 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1804

Petitioner

West

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Conrail

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 35 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, February 25, 1987

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1987

Advocates

Laurence E. Gold (on behalf of Respondents)

Paul Alan Levy (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Anderson v. Creighton

Mon, 23 Feb 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1520

Petitioner

Anderson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Creighton

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 635 (1987)

Argued

Monday, February 23, 1987

Decided

Thursday, June 25, 1987

Advocates

Andrew J. Pincus (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John Patrick Sheehy (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Burger v. Kemp

Mon, 30 Mar 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-5375

Petitioner

Burger

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kemp

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 776 (1987)

Argued

Monday, March 30, 1987

Decided

Friday, June 26, 1987

Advocates

Joseph M. Nursey (on behalf of the Petitioner)

William B. Hill, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Kemp, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland

Tue, 20 Jan 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1370

Appellee

Ragland

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 221 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, January 20, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, April 22, 1987

Advocates

John Steven Clark (on behalf of Appellee)

Anne Owings Wilson (on behalf of Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Icc v. Texas

Wed, 10 Dec 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1222

Petitioner

Icc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Texas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 85-1267

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 450 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, December 10, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, January 20, 1987

Advocates

Michael E. Roper (on behalf of the petitioners in No. 85-1267)

Fernando Rodriguez (on behalf of the respondents)

Richard G. Taranto (on behalf of the petitioners in No. 85-1222)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Icc, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 49 U.S.C. 1050

None

Gray v. Mississippi

Wed, 12 Nov 1986 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-5454

Petitioner

Gray

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mississippi

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 648 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, November 12, 1986

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1987

Advocates

Andru H. Volinsky (on behalf of Petitioner)

Marvin L. White, Jr. (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Gray, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 6: Other Sixth Amendment Provisions

None

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams

Tue, 21 Apr 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-526

Petitioner

Caterpillar Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Williams

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 386 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, April 21, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, June 9, 1987

Advocates

Gerald D Skoning (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Fritz Wollett (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Williams, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-693

Petitioner

Asahi Metal Industry Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Superior Court

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 102 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, November 5, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1987

Advocates

Graydon S. Staring (on behalf of Petitioner)

Ronald R. Haven (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Asahi Metal Industry Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None