Cases - 1987 term

South Carolina v. Baker

Mon, 07 Dec 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Location

South Carolina Legislature

1101 Gervais Street Columbia SC 29201

Columbia, SC 29201

United States

34° 0' 3.2724" N, 81° 2' 6.4176" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

94 ORIG

Plaintiff

South Carolina

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Baker

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 505 (1988)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, April 20, 1988

Facts of the Case

In 1982, Congress passed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA). The statute removed the federal income tax exemption for interest earned on publicly offered long-term bonds issued by state and local governments unless they were issued in registered form. South Carolina declared that both bearer and registered bonds issued by states and municipalities had been free from taxation since Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co (1895). The federal government claimed that the Act did not eliminate the state's power to issue bonds free from taxation; rather it regulated the types of bonds to be exempt.

Question

Did the TEFRA violate the Tenth Amendment and intergovernmental tax immunity?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Baker, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

The Court found that its subsequent decisions overruled Pollock so that state bond interest is not immune from a nondiscriminatory federal tax. Therefore, the owners of state bonds have no constitutional authority to exempt taxes on the earned income. TEFRA imposes no direct tax on the states; it is only collected from bondholders. The Act is nondiscriminatory because the regulations are imposed on the federal government as well as the state governments.

Traynor v. Turnage

Mon, 07 Dec 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-622

Petitioner

Traynor

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Turnage

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 86-737

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 535 (1988)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, April 20, 1988

Advocates

Keith A. Teel (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Jerrold J. Ganzfried (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Turnage, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 211

None

Morrison v. Olson

Tue, 26 Apr 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Congress

Constitution and Delaware Street Washington D.C. 20002

Washington 20002

United States

38° 53' 31.1496" N, 77° 0' 29.1744" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1279

Appellee

Olson

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Morrison

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 654 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, April 26, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 27, 1988

Advocates

Thomas S. Martin (on behalf of Appellees)

Alexia Morrison (on behalf of the Appellant)

Charles Fried (as amicus curiae, supporting Appellees)

Michael Davidson (as amicus curiae, supporting Appellant)

Facts of the Case

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 created a special court and empowered the Attorney General to recommend to that court the appointment of an "independent counsel" to investigate, and, if necessary, prosecute government officials for certain violations of federal criminal laws.

Question

Did the Act violate the constitutional principal of separation of powers?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Morrison, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 49

The Court addressed a number of constitutional issues in this case and upheld the law. The near-unanimous Court held that the means of selecting the independent counsel did not violate the Appointments Clause; the powers allocated to the special court did not violate Article III; and the Act was not offensive to the separation of powers doctrine since it did not impermissibly interfere with the functions of the Executive Branch.

Employment Division v. Smith

Tue, 08 Dec 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Drug rehabilitation clinic in Douglas County Douglas County, OR

United States

43° 7' 33.8484" N, 123° 14' 57.2496" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-946

Petitioner

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of the State of Oregon et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alfred Smith

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 86-947, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of the State of Oregon, et al. v. Black

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 660 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, December 8, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, April 27, 1988

Advocates

William F. Gary (Deputy Attorney General of Oregon, argued the cause for petitioners)

Suanne Lovendahl (argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Alfred Smith and Galen Black worked at a private drug rehabilitation clinic. The clinic fired them because they used a hallucinogenic drug called peyote for religious purposes while worshipping at their Native American Church. The Oregon Employment Division denied them unemployment compensation because it deemed they were fired for work-related "misconduct." The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that this violated their religious free exercise rights provided by the First Amendment. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed.

Question

Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using prohibited drugs for religious purposes?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Employment Division, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Free Exercise of Religion

Undecided. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion for a 5-3 court. The Court instructed the Oregon Supreme Court to determine whether peyote usage for religious purposes is prohibited under Oregon law, or only by the employer. The Court required this information to consider the constitutionality of the denial of benefits.

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi

Mon, 09 Nov 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-870

Petitioner

Phillips Petroleum Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mississippi

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

484 U.S. 469 (1988)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1988

Advocates

Kathy D. Jones (on behalf of the Respondent)

Eugene Gressman (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mississippi, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises

Wed, 23 Mar 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-367

Appellee

Midwesco Enterprises

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Bendix Autolite Corp.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 888 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, March 23, 1988

Decided

Friday, June 17, 1988

Advocates

Noel C. Crowley (on behalf of the appellant)

Ira J. Bornstein (on behalf of the appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Boos v. Barry

Mon, 09 Nov 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-803

Petitioner

Boos

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Barry

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 312 (1988)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, March 22, 1988

Advocates

Raymond D. Battocchi (on behalf of Petitioners)

Edwin S. Kneedler (as Amicus Curiae; in support of Respondents)

Edward E. Schwab (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

A provision in the District of Columbia Code prohibited the display of signs within 500 feet of a foreign embassy which tended to "bring that government into public odium or public disrepute." Congregations of three or more persons within the 500 feet limit were prohibited as well. Boos and others were denied permission to display signs criticizing the Soviet Union in front of that country's embassy.

Question

Did the District of Columbia Code violate the First Amendment of the Constitution?

Conclusion

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

The Court found that the Code's restriction on sign displays violated the First Amendment while the ban on congregations did not. First, Justice O'Connor argued that the prohibition on signs failed to meet the high standards that the Court uses when evaluating the content-based regulation of political speech in a public forum. The "dignity" standard that the Code used was similar to the "outrageousness" standard which the Court found unconstitutional in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) because it was too subjective. Second, O'Connor reasoned that since the language of the ban on congregations was narrowly drawn and could only be acted upon by the police in situations where a threat to security or peace were present, it did not prohibit peaceful gatherings.

Schweiker v. Chilicky

Tue, 01 Mar 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1781

Petitioner

Schweiker

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chilicky

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 412 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, March 1, 1988

Decided

Friday, June 24, 1988

Advocates

Laurence H. Tribe (on behalf of the Respondents)

Charles Fried (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Schweiker, 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

Michigan v. Chesternut

Wed, 24 Feb 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1824

Petitioner

Michigan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chesternut

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 567 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, February 24, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1988

Advocates

Carole M. Stanyar (on behalf of the respondent)

Andrea L. Solak (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Business Electronics v. Sharp Electronics

Tue, 19 Jan 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1910

Petitioner

Business Electronics

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sharp Electronics

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 717 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, January 19, 1988

Decided

Monday, May 2, 1988

Advocates

Gary V. Mcgowan (on behalf of the Petitioner)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Sharp Electronics, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Webster v. Doe

Tue, 12 Jan 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1294

Petitioner

Webster

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Doe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 592 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, January 12, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, June 15, 1988

Advocates

Charles Fried (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Mark H. Lynch (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Doe, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Administrative Procedure, or Administrative Orders Review

None

Bowen v. Kizer

Tue, 10 Nov 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-863

Petitioner

Bowen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kizer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 386 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, March 23, 1988

Advocates

Thomas W. Merrill (on behalf of Petitioner)

Ralph M. Johnson (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Kizer, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc.

Tue, 06 Oct 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-495

Petitioner

K Mart Corp.

Respondent

Cartier, Inc.

Consolidation

47th Street Photo, Inc. v. Coalition to Preserve the Integrity of American Trademarks, No. 86-624

United States v. Coalition to Preserve the Integrity of American Trademarks, No. 86-625

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 281 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, October 6, 1987

Reargued:

Tuesday, April 26, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1988

Advocates

Louis R. Cohen (on behalf of the federal petitioners)

Nathan Lewin (on behalf of the private petitioners)

William H. Allen (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for K Mart Corp., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 19 U.S.C. 1526

Split Vote

None

Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1765

Appellee

Crenshaw

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Bankers Life & Casualty Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 71 (1988)

Argued

Monday, November 30, 1987

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1988

Advocates

Bruce J. Ennis, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellee)

Theodore B. Olson (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Crenshaw, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Monessen Southwestern R. Co. v. Morgan

Mon, 22 Feb 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1743

Appellee

Morgan

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Monessen Southwestern R. Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 330 (1988)

Argued

Monday, February 22, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1988

Advocates

Paul A. Manion (on behalf of the Appellant)

Thomas Hollander (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Monessen Southwestern R. Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Employers' Liability

None

Doe v. United States

Wed, 02 Mar 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1753

Petitioner

Doe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 201 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, March 2, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, June 22, 1988

Advocates

Charles A. Rothfeld (on behalf of the Respondent)

Richard E. Timbie (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Tulsa Professional Collection Services v. Pope

Wed, 02 Mar 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1961

Appellee

Pope

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Tulsa Professional Collection Services

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 478 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, March 2, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, April 19, 1988

Advocates

Randall E. Rose (on behalf of the Appellant)

Phillip K. Smith (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Tulsa Professional Collection Services, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Huddleston v. United States

Wed, 23 Mar 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-6

Petitioner

Huddleston

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 681 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, March 23, 1988

Decided

Monday, May 2, 1988

Advocates

William C. Bryson (on behalf of the respondent)

Don Ferris (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Westfall v. Erwin

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-714

Petitioner

Westfall

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Erwin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 292 (1988)

Argued

Monday, November 2, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, January 13, 1988

Advocates

M. Clay Alspaugh (on behalf of the Respondent)

Donald B. Ayer (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lingle v. Norge Division Of Magic Chef, Inc.

Wed, 23 Mar 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-259

Petitioner

Lingle

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Norge Division Of Magic Chef, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 399 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, March 23, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1988

Advocates

Charles C. Jackson (on behalf of the respondent)

Paul Alan Levy (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Carpenter v. United States

Wed, 07 Oct 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-422

Petitioner

Carpenter

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 19 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, October 7, 1987

Decided

Monday, November 16, 1987

Advocates

Don D. Buchwald (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Charles Fried (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Gardebring v. Jenkins

Wed, 13 Jan 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-978

Petitioner

Gardebring

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jenkins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 415 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, January 13, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, April 19, 1988

Advocates

John L. Kirwin (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Laurie N. Davison (on behalf of the Respondents)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Gardebring, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Lyng v. Automobile Workers

Mon, 07 Dec 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1471

Appellee

Automobile Workers

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lyng

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 360 (1988)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, March 23, 1988

Advocates

Lawrence S. Robbins (on behalf of the Appellant)

Richard Walker Mc Hugh (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Lyng, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 7 U.S.C. 2015

None

P. R. Consumer Affairs Dept. v. Isla Petroleum

Mon, 29 Feb 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1406

Petitioner

P. R. Consumer Affairs Dept.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Isla Petroleum

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 495 (1988)

Argued

Monday, February 29, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, April 19, 1988

Advocates

Mark L. Evans (on behalf of the Respondents)

Lynn R. Coleman (on behalf of the Petitioners)

John C. Harrison (as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for P. R. Consumer Affairs Dept., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 751

None

Mathews v. United States

Wed, 02 Dec 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-6109

Petitioner

Mathews

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 58 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, December 2, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1988

Advocates

Charles A. Rothfeld (on behalf of the Respondent)

Franklyn M. Gimbel (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mathews, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk

Mon, 21 Mar 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1052

Petitioner

Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Schlunk

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 694 (1988)

Argued

Monday, March 21, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, June 15, 1988

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (amicus curiae, supporting Respondent)

Herbert Rubin (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Jack Samuel Ring (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Fausto

Wed, 07 Oct 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-595

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fausto

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 439 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, October 7, 1987

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1988

Advocates

John M. Nannes (as amicus curiae, supporting Respondent)

Christopher J. Wright (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 7501

None

Maynard v. Cartwright

Tue, 19 Apr 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-519

Petitioner

Maynard

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cartwright

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 356 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, April 19, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1988

Advocates

Susan S. Dickerson (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Mandy Welch (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Coy v. Iowa

Wed, 13 Jan 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Iowa District Court for Clinton County

612 N 2nd St Clinton IA 52732

Clinton, IA 52732

United States

41° 51' 0.6408" N, 90° 11' 15.18" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-6757

Appellee

Iowa

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

John Coy

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 1012 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, January 13, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, June 29, 1988

Advocates

Paul Papak (by appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the appellant)

Gorden E. Allen (Deputy Attorney General of Iowa, argued the cause for appellee)

Facts of the Case

John Coy was tried in an Iowa court for sexually assaulting two 13-year-old girls. When the girls were testifying against Coy, the court placed a large screen in front of him so that the girls would not have to see him. The jury proceeded to convict him. Coy argued that Iowa Code 910A, which provides for the use of a screen in child sexual abuse cases, violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers face-to-face. He also claimed that the code violated his right to due process, since having a screen placed between him and the girls made him appear guilty before he was properly tried. The trial court dismissed these claims and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed.

Question

Does a defendant have the right to confront his alleged victims "face-to-face" under the Sixth Amendment if they testify against him before a jury?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Coy, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of a 6-2 court. The Sixth Amendment explicitly states that the accused has the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The Court maintained this "confrontation is essential to fairness." The screen clearly disrupted this confrontation in a way that could have biased the trial. While acknowledging that "face-to-face presence may, unfortunately, upset the truthful rape victim or abused child," the Court insisted that "by the same token it may confound and undo the false accuser, or reveal the child coached by a malevolent adult." A trial court cannot abridge the right to confrontation using a generalized law, and in Coy's case no specific reason was given for using a screen.

Langley v. Fdic

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-489

Petitioner

Langley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fdic

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 86 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, October 14, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, December 1, 1987

Advocates

Richard G. Taranto (on behalf of the respondent)

William C. Shockey (on behalf of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Fdic, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 1823

None

California v. Greenwood

Mon, 11 Jan 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Billy Greenwood's Residence

1575 Fayette Place Laguna Beach CA

Laguna Beach, CA

United States

33° 33' 8.7624" N, 117° 48' 0.6552" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-684

Petitioner

California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Greenwood

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 35 (1988)

Argued

Monday, January 11, 1988

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1988

Advocates

Michael J. Pear (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Michael Ian Garey (By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Local police suspected Billy Greenwood was dealing drugs from his residence. Because the police did not have enough evidence for a warrant to search his home, they searched the garbage bags Greenwood had left at the curb for pickup. The police uncovered evidence of drug use, which was then used to obtain a warrant to search the house. That search turned up illegal substances, and Greenwood was arrested on felony charges.

Question

Did the warrantless search and seizure of Greenwood's garbage violate the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure guarantee?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for California, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

Voting 6 to 2, the Court held that garbage placed at the curbside is unprotected by the Fourth Amendment. The Court argued that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy for trash on public streets "readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public." The Court also noted that the police cannot be expected to ignore criminal activity that can be observed by "any member of the public."

Huffman v. Western Nuclear, Inc.

Wed, 27 Apr 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-645

Petitioner

Huffman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Western Nuclear, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 663 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, April 27, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, June 15, 1988

Advocates

Thomas W. Merrill (on behalf of Petitioners)

Peter J. Nickles (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Huffman, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Atomic Energy

None

United States v. Providence Journal Co.

Wed, 20 Jan 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-65

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Providence Journal Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 693 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, January 20, 1988

Decided

Monday, May 2, 1988

Advocates

Robert D. Parrillo (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Floyd Abrams (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Providence Journal Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 25 U.S.C. 518

None

Mills v. Maryland

Wed, 30 Mar 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-5367

Petitioner

Mills

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maryland

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 367 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, March 30, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1988

Advocates

George E. Burns, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Charles O. Monk, II (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Church Of Scientology Of California v. Irs

Mon, 05 Oct 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-472

Petitioner

Church Of Scientology Of California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Irs

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 9 (1987)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, November 10, 1987

Advocates

Michael Lee Hertzberg (on behalf of the Petitioner)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Irs, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Mccoy v. Court Of Appeals Of Wisconsin

Wed, 20 Jan 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-5002

Appellee

Court Of Appeals Of Wisconsin

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mccoy

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 429 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, January 20, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1988

Advocates

Louis Bennett Butler, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellant)

Stephen W. Kleinmaier (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Court Of Appeals Of Wisconsin, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Marino v. Ortiz

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1415

Petitioner

Marino

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ortiz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 301 (1988)

Argued

Monday, November 30, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, January 13, 1988

Advocates

Leonard J. Koerner (on behalf of Respondents)

Glen D. Nager (as amicus curiae, in support of Petitioners)

Ronald Podolsky (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Felder v. Casey

Mon, 28 Mar 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-526

Petitioner

Felder

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Casey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 131 (1988)

Argued

Monday, March 28, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, June 22, 1988

Advocates

Steven H. Steinglass (on behalf of the petitioner)

Grant F. Langley (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Felder, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Yates v. Aiken

Wed, 02 Dec 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-6060

Petitioner

Yates

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aiken

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 211 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, December 2, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, January 12, 1988

Advocates

Donald John Zelenka (on behalf of the Respondent)

David I. Bruck (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Owens

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-877

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Owens

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

484 U.S. 554 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, November 4, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1988

Advocates

William C. Bryson (on behalf of the petitioner)

Allan Ides (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

None

Etsi Pipeline Project v. Missouri

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-939

Petitioner

Etsi Pipeline Project

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Missouri

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 86-941

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

484 U.S. 495 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, November 3, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1988

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Elizabeth M. Osenbaugh (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Missouri, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 58 Stat. 887

None

Pierce v. Underwood

Tue, 01 Dec 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1512

Petitioner

Pierce

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Underwood

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 552 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, December 1, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 27, 1988

Advocates

Mary S. Burdick (on behalf of the Respondent)

Thomas W. Merrill (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Underwood, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Access to Justice

None

Mullins Coal Co. v. Director, Owcp

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-327

Petitioner

Mullins Coal Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Director, Owcp

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 135 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, October 14, 1987

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1987

Advocates

Michael K. Kellogg (on behalf of the federal respondent in support of the petitioners)

Mark E. Solomons (on behalf of the petitioners)

C. Randall Lowe (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mullins Coal Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 30 U.S.C. 901

None

Catholic Conf. v. Abortion Rights Mobilization

Mon, 18 Apr 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-416

Petitioner

Catholic Conf.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Abortion Rights Mobilization

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 72 (1988)

Argued

Monday, April 18, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1988

Advocates

Kevin T. Baine (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Marshall Beil (on behalf of the Respondents)

Alan I. Horowitz (as federal respondents supporting Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Catholic Conf., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-492

Petitioner

Boyle

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United Technologies Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 500 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1987

Reargued:

Wednesday, April 27, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 27, 1988

Advocates

Louis S. Franecke (Reargued the cause for the petitioner)

Philip A. Lacovara (Reargued the cause for the respondent)

Donald B. Ayer (Reargued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance)

Facts of the Case

Following the death of US Marine helicopter pilot David A. Boyle, Delbert Boyle sued the helicopter's manufacturer ("Sikorsky") for defectively designing its copilot emergency escape hatch. On appeal from a state-law based jury verdict favoring Boyle, the Court of Appeals found that Sikorsky could not be held liable under Virginia tort law for any design flaws since it met the requirements of the "military contractor defense." Boyle appealed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question

Are state tort laws, holding independent military contractors liable for injuries caused by their design flaws, valid?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United Technologies Corp., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

No. In a 5-to4 decision, the Court held that despite the absence of specific legislation immunizing government contractors from liability for design flaws, questions of their liability are of unique federal concern. As such, to the extent that it holds military contractors liable for design flaws, state law may significantly conflict with federal interests thereby requiring its displacement. The Court added that in the instant case, such displacement is appropriate since the United States approved the helicopter's specifications, the equipment met those specifications, and Sikorsky warned the government of possible dangers in the helicopter's use. Finally, since the Court of Appeals' use of the "military contractor defense" failed to specify if a reasonable jury could have found for Boyle, the Court vacated its judgment and remanded.

Thompson v. Oklahoma

Mon, 09 Nov 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-6169

Petitioner

Thompson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oklahoma

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 815 (1988)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, June 29, 1988

Advocates

Harry F. Tepker, Jr. (By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the petitioner)

David W. Lee (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

At the age of 15 years Thompson was tried as an adult, convicted of first degree murder, and sentenced to death. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma affirmed. The Supreme Court granted Thompson certiorari.

Question

Would the execution of a 15 year old violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments"?

Conclusion

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

Yes. After noting that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court held that the execution of a person under the age of 16 was unconstitutional. In noting the uniform ban among all relevant state statutes against the execution of one under the age of 16, the Court explained that such an act would violate the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." The case was reversed and remanded.

U.S. Postal Service v. Letter Carriers

Wed, 20 Apr 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-59

Petitioner

U.S. Postal Service

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Letter Carriers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 680 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, April 20, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, April 27, 1988

Advocates

Glen D. Nager (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Keith E. Secular (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Honig v. Doe

Mon, 09 Nov 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-728

Petitioner

Honig

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Doe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 305 (1988)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, January 20, 1988

Advocates

Sheila L. Brogna (on behalf of Respondents)

Asher Rubin (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Glen D. Nager (as Amicus Curiae; in support of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Doe, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Education of the Handicapped, Education for All Handicapped Children, or Individuals with Disabilities Education Acts, or related statutes, as amended; also see ADA

None

Alabama And Mississippi Boundary Case

Mon, 11 Jan 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

9 ORIG

Plaintiff

Alabama And Mississippi Boundary Case

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 88 (1988)

Argued

Monday, January 11, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, March 1, 1988

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Alabama And Mississippi Boundary Case, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.

Mon, 21 Mar 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-283

Petitioner

Budinich

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Becton Dickinson & Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 196 (1988)

Argued

Monday, March 21, 1988

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1988

Advocates

Terre Lee Rushton (on behalf of the Respondent)

Thomas Frank (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None