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