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

Forrester v. White

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-761

Petitioner

Forrester

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

White

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 219 (1988)

Argued

Monday, November 2, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, January 12, 1988

Advocates

Rosalyn B. Kaplan (on behalf of the Respondent)

Mary Anne Sedey (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Forrester, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

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

485 U.S. 176 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, October 6, 1987

Decided

Monday, March 7, 1988

Advocates

Louis R. Cohen (on behalf of Federal Petitioners)

Robert W. Steele (as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioners)

William H. Allen (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Cartier, Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1331

None

Bennett v. Arkansas

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-6124

Petitioner

Bennett

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arkansas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 395 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, March 2, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, March 29, 1988

Advocates

Thomas M. Carpenter (on behalf of the Petitioner)

J. Steven Clark (on behalf of the Respondent)

Richard J. Lazarus (as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bennett, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Pennell v. San Jose

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-753

Appellee

San Jose

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Pennell

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 1 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1988

Advocates

Harry D. Miller (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Joan Gallo (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

The City of San Jose enacted a rent-control ordinance in 1979 in an attempt to alleviate the problem of skyrocketing rent prices due to the growing shortage of and the increasing demand for housing. Part of the ordinance allowed a Mediating Hearing Officer to consider as one factor "hardship to a tenant" when evaluating rent increases imposed by landlords.

Question

Did the ordinance violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?

Conclusion

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

No. The Court held that the ordinance was rationally crafted to protect the financial investments of landlords while simultaneously preventing tenants from becoming victims of burdensome rent increases. The City argued the ordinance satisfied a need. This view was uncontested and, according to Justice Rehnquist, represented a "legitimate and rational" means to protect "consumer welfare."

Hartigan v. Zbaraz

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-673

Petitioner

Hartigan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Zbaraz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 171 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, November 3, 1987

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1987

Advocates

Colleen K. Connell (on behalf of the Appellees)

Michael J. Hayes (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Taylor v. Illinois

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-5963

Petitioner

Taylor

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 400 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, October 7, 1987

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1988

Advocates

Richard E. Cunningham (on behalf the Petitioner)

Michael Shabat (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Illinois, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

None

NLRB v. Food & Commercial Workers

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-594

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Food & Commercial Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 112 (1987)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1987

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1987

Advocates

Norton J. Come (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Laurence E. Gold (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for NLRB, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-157

Petitioner

Allied Tube & Conduit Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Indian Head, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 492 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, February 24, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1988

Advocates

Fredric W. Yerman (on behalf of the respondent)

Marvin E. Frankel (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Indian Head, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Lowenfield v. Phelps

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-6867

Petitioner

Lowenfield

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Phelps

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 231 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, October 14, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, January 13, 1988

Advocates

David Klingsberg (on behalf of the petitioner)

John M. Mamoulides (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

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

Location

Hustler Magazine Headquarters

8484 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills CA 90211

Beverly Hills, CA 90211

United States

34° 3' 52.236" N, 118° 22' 32.2644" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1278

Petitioner

Hustler Magazine

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Falwell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 46 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, December 2, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1988

Advocates

Alan L. Isaacman (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Norman Roy Grutman (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

A lead story in the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a "parody" of an advertisement, modeled after an actual ad campaign, claiming that Falwell, a Fundamentalist minister and political leader, had a drunken incestuous relationship with his mother in an outhouse. Falwell sued to recover damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Falwell won a jury verdict on the emotional distress claim and was awarded a total of $150,000 in damages. Hustler Magazine appealed.

Question

Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection extend to the making of patently offensive statements about public figures, resulting perhaps in their suffering emotional distress?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Hustler Magazine, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. In a unanimous opinion the Court held that public figures, such as Jerry Falwell, may not recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the offending publication contained a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice." The Court added that the interest of protecting free speech, under the First Amendment, surpassed the state's interest in protecting public figures from patently offensive speech, so long as such speech could not reasonably be construed to state actual facts about its subject.

Riley v. National Federation Of Blind

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-328

Appellee

National Federation Of Blind

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Riley

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 781 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, March 23, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, June 29, 1988

Advocates

Errol Copilevitz (on behalf of the appellees)

Lacy H. Thornburg (on behalf of the appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for National Federation Of Blind, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Split Vote

None

Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-499

Petitioner

Christianson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Colt Industries Operating Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 800 (1988)

Argued

Monday, April 18, 1988

Decided

Friday, June 17, 1988

Advocates

Anthony M. Radice (on behalf of the Respondent)

Stuart R. Lefstein (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Christianson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1245

None

Landers v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Tue, 29 Mar 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-2037

Petitioner

Landers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 652 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, March 29, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, April 27, 1988

Advocates

Clinton J. Miller, III (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Harold A. Ross (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for National Railroad Passenger Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Railway Labor

None

Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman

Tue, 22 Mar 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-352

Petitioner

Sun Oil Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wortman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 717 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, March 22, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, June 15, 1988

Advocates

Gordon Penny (on behalf of the respondent)

Gerald Sawatzky (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Wortman, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause

None

Satterwhite v. Texas

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-6284

Petitioner

Satterwhite

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Texas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 249 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, December 8, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1988

Advocates

Charles A. Palmer (on behalf of the Respondent)

Richard D. Woods (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Satterwhite, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Bethesda Hospital Assn. v. Bowen

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1764

Petitioner

Bethesda Hospital Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bowen

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 399 (1988)

Argued

Monday, February 29, 1988

Decided

Monday, April 4, 1988

Advocates

Andrew J. Pincus (on behalf of the Respondent)

Leonard C. Homer (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bethesda Hospital Assn., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Medicare--provisions of the Social Security Act

None

Paperworkers v. Misco, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-651

Petitioner

Paperworkers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Misco, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 29 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, December 1, 1987

Advocates

David Silberman (on behalf of the Petitioners)

A. Richard Gear (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Wheat v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-4

Petitioner

Wheat

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 153 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, March 2, 1988

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1988

Advocates

John J. Cleary (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Michael K. Kellogg (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1172

Petitioner

Goodyear Atomic Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Miller

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 174 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, January 19, 1988

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1988

Advocates

Thomas W. Merrill (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae in support of Appellant)

Robert E. Tait (on behalf of the Appellant)

Stewart W. Jaffy (on behalf of Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Miller, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

None

Fdic v. Mallen

Tue, 22 Mar 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-82

Appellee

Mallen

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Fdic

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 230 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, March 22, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1988

Advocates

Mary E. Curtin (on behalf of the appellees)

John C. Harrison (on behalf of the appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Fdic, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 1818

None

Schneidewind v. Anr Pipeline Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-986

Petitioner

Schneidewind

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Anr Pipeline Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 293 (1988)

Argued

Monday, November 2, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, March 22, 1988

Advocates

Don L. Keskey (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Howard J. Trienens (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Anr Pipeline Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Natural Gas, or Natural Gas Policy Acts

None

Basic Inc. v. Levinson

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-279

Petitioner

Basic Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Levinson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 224 (1988)

Argued

Monday, November 2, 1987

Decided

Monday, March 7, 1988

Advocates

Wayne Alan Cross (on behalf of the Respondents)

Joel W. Sternman (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Levinson, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Ferc v. Martin Exploration Management Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-363

Petitioner

Ferc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Martin Exploration Management Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 87-364

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 204 (1988)

Argued

Monday, March 28, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1988

Advocates

Richard G. Taranto (on behalf of the petitioner in No. 870363)

Richard A. Solomon (on behalf of the petitioners in No. 87-364)

Jeffrey S. Davidson (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Ferc, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Natural Gas, or Natural Gas Policy Acts

None

Franklin v. Lynaugh

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-5546

Petitioner

Franklin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lynaugh

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 164 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, March 1, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, June 22, 1988

Advocates

William C. Zapalac (on behalf of Respondent)

Mark Stevens (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Loeffler v. Frank

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1431

Petitioner

Loeffler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Frank

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 549 (1988)

Argued

Monday, January 11, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1988

Advocates

Lisa S. Van Amburg (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Charles A. Rothfeld (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Loeffler, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

West v. Atkins

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-5096

Petitioner

West

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Atkins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 42 (1988)

Argued

Monday, March 28, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1988

Advocates

Jacob L. Safron (on behalf of the respondent)

Adam Stein (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for West, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Sheridan v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-626

Petitioner

Sheridan

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. 392 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, April 26, 1988

Decided

Friday, June 24, 1988

Advocates

Michael J. Kator (on behalf of the petitioners)

Christopher J. Wright (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Sheridan, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Tort Claims, or Alien Tort Statute

None

Patrick v. Burget

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1145

Petitioner

Patrick

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Burget

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 94 (1988)

Argued

Monday, February 22, 1988

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1988

Advocates

Thomas M. Triplett (on behalf of the Respondents)

Barbee B. Lyon (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United Savings Assn. v. Timbers Of Inwood Forest

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1602

Petitioner

United Savings Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Timbers Of Inwood Forest

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 365 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, December 1, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, January 20, 1988

Advocates

H. Miles Cohn (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Leonarad H. Simon (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Timbers Of Inwood Forest, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Meyer v. Grant

Mon, 25 Apr 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-920

Petitioner

Meyer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Grant

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 414 (1988)

Argued

Monday, April 25, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1988

Advocates

Maurice G. Knaizer (on behalf of the Appellants)

William C. Danks (on behalf of Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Amadeo v. Zant

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-5277

Petitioner

Amadeo

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Zant

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 214 (1988)

Argued

Monday, March 28, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1988

Advocates

Stephen B. Bright (on behalf of the petitioner)

Susan V. Boleyn (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Houston v. Lack

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-5428

Petitioner

Houston

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lack

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 266 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, April 27, 1988

Decided

Friday, June 24, 1988

Advocates

Jerry L. Smith (On behalf of the Respondent)

Penny J. White (On behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.

Wed, 09 Dec 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-957

Petitioner

Liljeberg

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Health Services Acquisition Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 847 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, December 9, 1987

Reargued:

Monday, April 25, 1988

Decided

Friday, June 17, 1988

Advocates

H. Bartow Farr, III (on behalf of the Petitioner)

William M. Lucas, Jr. (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Health Services Acquisition Corp., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 455

None

Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Ser

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1387

Petitioner

Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Ser

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 825 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, April 19, 1988

Decided

Friday, June 17, 1988

Advocates

Ernest L. Mathews, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Brian J. Martin (as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioners)

Maureen E. Mahoney (as amicus curiae, supporting judgment below)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Lanier Collection Agency & Ser, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Karcher v. May

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1551

Appellee

May

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Karcher

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 72 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, October 6, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, December 1, 1987

Advocates

Norman L. Cantor (on behalf of Respondent)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for May, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Commissioner v. Bollinger

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1672

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bollinger

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 340 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, January 13, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, March 22, 1988

Advocates

Charles R. Hembree (on behalf of the Respondents)

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Bollinger, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co.

Tue, 23 Feb 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1845

Petitioner

Torres

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oakland Scavenger Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 312 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, February 23, 1988

Decided

Friday, June 24, 1988

Advocates

Stephen McKae (on behalf of the respondent)

B.V. Yturbide (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-7113

Appellee

Dickinson Public Schools

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Kadrmas

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 450 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, March 30, 1988

Decided

Friday, June 24, 1988

Advocates

Nicholas Spaeth (as amicus curiae, in support of Appellees)

Duane Houdek (on behalf of the Appellants)

George T. Dynes (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Dickinson Public Schools, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Estoppel

None

Clark v. Jeter

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-5565

Petitioner

Clark

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jeter

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 456 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, April 19, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1988

Advocates

Craig McClean (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Evalynn B. Welling (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

A Pennsylvania law required illegitimate children to prove paternity before seeking support from their fathers. The statute of limitations on suits seeking to establish paternity was six years from the birth of the illegitimate child. However, the state allowed legitimate children to seek support from their parents at any time. Cherlyn Clark sought child support from Gene Jeter, whom she claimed was the father of her daughter, Tiffany. Blood tests indicated that there was a 99.3% probability that Jeter indeed was Tiffany's father. A state court dismissed Clark's suit because it was initiated after the statute of limitations had expired.

Question

Did the Pennsylvania law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Clark, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

The Court found that the statute violated the Constitution. Citing the test which the Court developed in Mills v. Habluetzel (1982) to evaluate equal protection challenges to statutes of limitations in paternity suits, Justice O'Connor held that the Pennsylvania law did not "provide a reasonable opportunity to assert a claim on behalf of an illegitimate child." Furthermore, since, in some circumstances, Pennsylvania permitted paternity suits involving illegitimate children to be initiated after six years, there was no reason why the law in question was necessary to deter the litigation of "stale or fraudulent claims," a legitimate state interest.

Hicks v. Feiock

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-787

Petitioner

Hicks

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Feiock

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 624 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, December 1, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, April 27, 1988

Advocates

Michael R. Capizzi (on behalf of the petitioner)

Richard Lynn Schwartzberg (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hicks, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-336

Petitioner

Van Cauwenberghe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Biard

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 517 (1988)

Argued

Monday, March 21, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1988

Advocates

John G. Kester (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Thomas C. Walsh (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Regents Of Univ. Of Cal. v. Public Empl. Rel. Bd.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-935

Appellee

Public Empl. Rel. Bd.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Regents Of Univ. Of Cal.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 589 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, January 12, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, April 20, 1988

Advocates

Andrea L. Biren (on behalf of the Appellees)

James N. Odle (on behalf of the Appellant)

Christopher J. Wright (as Amicus Curiae, in Support of Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Regents Of Univ. Of Cal., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1693

None

Murray v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-995

Petitioner

Murray

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 86-1016

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 533 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, December 8, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 27, 1988

Advocates

Roy T. Englert, Jr. (ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

Raymond Randolph (ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Florida v. Long

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1685

Petitioner

Florida

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Long

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 223 (1988)

Argued

Monday, February 22, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, June 22, 1988

Advocates

Charles T. Collette (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Woodrow M. Melvin, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Laborers Tr. Fund v. Advanced Lightweight Conc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-2079

Petitioner

Laborers Tr. Fund

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Advanced Lightweight Conc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

484 U.S. 539 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1988

Advocates

Michael B. Roger (on behalf of Petitioners)

Mark S. Ross (on behalf of Respondents)

Lawrence G. Wallace (as amicus curiae; in support of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Advanced Lightweight Conc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Bank Of Nova Scotia v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-578

Petitioner

Bank Of Nova Scotia

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 87-602

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 250 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, April 27, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, June 22, 1988

Advocates

William C. Bryson (On behalf of the Respondent)

James E. Nesland (On behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Vermont v. Cox

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1108

Petitioner

Vermont

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cox

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 173 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, November 3, 1987

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1987

Advocates

Susan R. Harritt (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Henry Hinton (as amicus curiae, by invitation of the Court in support of the judgment below)

Paul J. Larkin, Jr. (as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Arizona v. Roberson

Tue, 29 Mar 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-354

Petitioner

Arizona

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Roberson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 675 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, March 29, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, June 15, 1988

Advocates

Robert L. Barrasso (on behalf of the Respondent)

Bruce M. Ferg (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Paul J. Larkin, Jr. (on behalf of United States as Amicus Curiae supporting Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Roberson, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

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

Location

Hazelwood East High School

11300 Dunn Road St.Louis MO 63138

St.Louis, MO 63138

United States

38° 46' 35.8104" N, 90° 14' 14.2044" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-836

Petitioner

Hazelwood School District

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kuhlmeier

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 260 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, January 13, 1988

Advocates

Leslie D. Edwards (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Robert P. Baine, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

The Spectrum, the school-sponsored newspaper of Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited by students. In May 1983, Robert E. Reynolds, the school principal, received the pages proofs for the May 13 issue. Reynolds found two of the articles in the issue to be inappropriate, and ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be withheld from publication. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood East students brought the case to court.

Question

Did the principal's deletion of the articles violate the students' rights under the First Amendment?

Conclusion

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

No. In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that the First Amendment did not require schools to affirmatively promote particular types of student speech. The Court held that schools must be able to set high standards for student speech disseminated under their auspices, and that schools retained the right to refuse to sponsor speech that was "inconsistent with 'the shared values of a civilized social order.'" Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." The actions of principal Reynolds, the Court held, met this test.

Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-505

Petitioner

Chick Kam Choo

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Exxon Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 140 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, March 30, 1988

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1988

Advocates

James P. Cooney (on behalf of the Respondent)

Benton Musslewhite (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Chick Kam Choo, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2283

None

FLRA v. Aberdeen Proving Ground

Tue, 23 Feb 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1715

Petitioner

Federal Labor Relations Authority

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aberdeen Proving Ground

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 409 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, February 23, 1988

Decided

Monday, April 4, 1988

Advocates

Lawrence S. Robbins (on behalf of the respondent)

Ruth E. Peters (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Aberdeen Proving Ground, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 7117

None

Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1021

Petitioner

Carnegie-Mellon Univ.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cohill

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 343 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, January 20, 1988

Advocates

Allan J. Opsitnick (on behalf of Respondents)

Walter P. DeForest, III (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Debartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Trades Council

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1461

Petitioner

Debartolo Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fla. Gulf Coast Trades Council

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 568 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, January 20, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, April 20, 1988

Advocates

Lawrence M. Cohen (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Louis R. Cohen (federal respondent NLRB in support of Petitioner)

Laurence E. Gold (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Fla. Gulf Coast Trades Council, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-958

Petitioner

Norwest Bank Worthington

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ahlers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 197 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, January 12, 1988

Decided

Monday, March 7, 1988

Advocates

Gordon B. Conn, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

William L. Needler (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Norwest Bank Worthington, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1329

Petitioner

Gulfstream Aerospace Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mayacamas Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 271 (1988)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, March 22, 1988

Advocates

Elliot L. Bien (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Gregory H. Ward (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mayacamas Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

Lyng v. Northwest Indian CPA

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

Location

Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation Hoopa, CA

United States

41° 7' 26.4" N, 123° 41' 0.96" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1013

Petitioner

Lyng

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Northwest Indian CPA

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 439 (1988)

Argued

Monday, November 30, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, April 19, 1988

Advocates

Marilyn B. Miles (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Andrew J. Pincus (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

The United States Forest Service was considering building a paved roadway that would cut through the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest. It was also considering timber harvesting in the area. A study commissioned by the Forest Service reported that harvesting the Chimney Rock area would irreparably damage grounds that had historically been used by Native Americans to conduct religious rituals. After the Forest Service decided to construct a road, the Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association took action against Secretary of Agriculture Richard Lyng.

Question

Did the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause prohibit the government from harvesting or developing the Chimney Rock area?

Conclusion

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

No. In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Forest Service was free to harvest the lands. Though the government's actions would have severe adverse effects on the Indians' practice oftheir religion, those effects were only incidental and did not constitute an attempt to coerce Native Americans to act in violation of their beliefs. The Court reasoned that government could not operate "if it were required to satisfy every citizen's religious needs and desires," and that the First Amendment did not give any one group veto power over public programs that did not actually prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Assn.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-16

Petitioner

Shapero

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kentucky Bar Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 466 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, March 1, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1988

Advocates

Donald L. Cox (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Frank P. Doheny, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Shapero, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

United States v. Taylor

Mon, 25 Apr 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-573

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Taylor

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 326 (1988)

Argued

Monday, April 25, 1988

Decided

Friday, June 24, 1988

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Ian G. Loveseth (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 3162

None

Bowen v. Massachusetts

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-712

Petitioner

Bowen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Massachusetts

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 87-929

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 879 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, April 20, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, June 29, 1988

Advocates

Roy T. Englert, Jr. (on behalf of the Federal Petitioners/Respondents)

Thomas A. Barnico (on behalf of State Respondent/Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Massachusetts, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Administrative Procedure, or Administrative Orders Review

None

Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-6139

Petitioner

Watson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fort Worth Bank & Trust

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 977 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, January 20, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, June 29, 1988

Advocates

Art Brender (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Bruce W. McGee (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Watson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

City Of New York v. Fcc

Tue, 29 Mar 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-339

Petitioner

City Of New York

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fcc

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 57 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, March 29, 1988

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1988

Advocates

Stephen J. Mcgrath (on behalf of the Petitioners)

H. Bartow Farr, III (on behalf of Respondent, National Cable Television)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Respondent FCC)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Fcc, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 47 U.S.C. 521

None

Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1908

Petitioner

Stewart Organization, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ricoh Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 22 (1988)

Argued

Monday, February 29, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1988

Advocates

Scott M. Phelps (on behalf of the Respondents)

F. A. Flowers, III (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Ricoh Corp., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1404

None

Communications Workers v. Beck

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-637

Petitioner

Communications Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Beck

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 735 (1988)

Argued

Monday, January 11, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, June 29, 1988

Advocates

Edwin Vieira, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondents)

Laurence E. Gold (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Beck, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-399

Appellee

Friedman

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Supreme Court of Virginia

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 59 (1988)

Argued

Monday, March 21, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1988

Advocates

Cornish F. Hitchcock (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Gregory E. Lucyk (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

Myrna Friedman, a resident of Maryland, was hired at a law firm located in the state of Virginia. Virginia law made permanent residency a requirement for admission to the Virginia bar without taking the bar examination. After Friedman's appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court was turned down, her claim was upheld in federal district court.

Question

Did the Virginia law violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Friedman, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Privileges and Immunities Clause

In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that Virginia's residency requirement was unconstitutional. The Court held that "'one of the privileges which the Clause guarantees to citizens of State A is that of doing business in State B on terms of substantial equality with the citizens of that State,'" and that the practice of law was sufficiently basic to the economy to be deemed a privilege protected by the Clause. The Court found that the regulation discriminated among otherwise equally qualified applicants solely on the basis of residency, failing to bear a close relation to a substantial state interest.

City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1042

Appellee

Plain Dealer Publishing

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

City of Lakewood

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 750 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, November 4, 1987

Decided

Friday, June 17, 1988

Advocates

Henry B. Fischer (Argued the cause for the appellant)

James P. Garner (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Plain Dealer Publishing challenged the constitutionality of a Lakewood city ordinance that authorized its mayor to grant or deny applications, made by publishers, seeking permission to place newsracks on public property. The ordinance merely required Lakewood's mayor to provide an explanation, in the event of a permit denial, while empowering him to subject all permit approvals to whatever "terms and conditions" which he "deemed necessary and reasonable." On appeal from a district court ruling that found the ordinance constitutional, the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court granted Lakewood's request for certiorari.

Question

Did Lakewood's city ordinance violate freedom of speech rights as protected by the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Plain Dealer Publishing, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. The Court held that the licensing ordinance was facially invalid since it gave Lakewood's mayor unbridled discretion to discriminate against permit seekers, based on the content of their publications and viewpoints. This, in turn, promoted self-censorship by publishers and other speakers who sought to curry favor with the mayor's officer in order to secure the approval of their licensing requests. The Court added that while cities may require the periodic licensing of newsracks on public property, even subjecting such procedures to reasonable restrictions, they may not use language which is so open-ended as to give city officials unlimited subjective discretion over permit approvals.

Bowen v. Galbreath

Wed, 09 Dec 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1146

Petitioner

Bowen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Galbreath

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 74 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, December 9, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1988

Advocates

Anthony W. Bartels (on behalf of the Respondent)

Richard J. Lazarus (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Bowen, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Supplemental Security Income

None

Johnson v. Mississippi

Mon, 25 Apr 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-5468

Petitioner

Johnson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mississippi

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 578 (1988)

Argued

Monday, April 25, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1988

Advocates

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

Floyd Abrams (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

EEOC v. Commercial Office Products Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1696

Petitioner

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Commercial Office Products Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 107 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, January 13, 1988

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1988

Advocates

James L. Stone (on behalf of the Respondent)

Richard J. Lazarus (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for EEOC, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Gwaltney v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-473

Petitioner

Gwaltney

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 49 (1987)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, December 1, 1987

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (on behalf of the Respondent)

E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Gwaltney, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water), plus amendments

None

Ins v. Pangilinan

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1992

Petitioner

Ins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pangilinan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 86-2019

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 875 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, February 24, 1988

Decided

Friday, June 17, 1988

Advocates

Robert H. Klonoff (on behalf of the petitioner)

Donald L. Ungar (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Ins, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Pinter v. Dahl

Wed, 09 Dec 1987 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-805

Petitioner

Pinter

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dahl

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 622 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, December 9, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, June 15, 1988

Advocates

Richard G. Taranto (as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioners)

Braden W. Sparks (on behalf of the Petitioners)

John A. Spinuzzi (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Pinter, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Mclaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1520

Petitioner

Mclaughlin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Richland Shoe Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 128 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, February 24, 1988

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1988

Advocates

Leon Ehrlich (on behalf of the respondent)

Donald B. Ayer (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Richland Shoe Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

New Energy Company of Indiana v. Limbach

Tue, 29 Mar 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-654

Appellee

Limbach

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

New Energy Company of Indiana

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 269 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, March 29, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1988

Advocates

Herman Schwartz (on behalf of the Appellant)

Richard C. Farrin (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

An Indiana law gave a tax credit against the Ohio motor vehicle fuel sales tax for each gallon of ethanol sold by fuel dealers, provided that the ethanol was produced in Ohio or in a state that grants similar tax advantages as the Ohio scheme.

Question

Did the law discriminate against interstate commerce and violate the Commerce Clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for New Energy Company of Indiana, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

Yes. The unanimous Court held that the law's primary purpose was to confer favorable tax treatment on Ohio-produced ethanol which imposed "an economic disadvantage upon out-of-state sellers." Ohio was unable to advance a legitimate local purpose for the law

Thompson v. Thompson

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-964

Petitioner

Thompson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thompson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 174 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, October 6, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, January 12, 1988

Advocates

Kenneth Rigby (on behalf of Respondent)

Ronand W. Weiss (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Thompson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1738

None

United States v. Kozminski

Tue, 23 Feb 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-2000

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kozminski

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 931 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, February 23, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, June 29, 1988

Advocates

Carl Ziemba (on behalf of the respondent)

William Bradford Reynolds (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Kozminski, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 241

None

St. Louis v. Praprotnik

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-772

Petitioner

St. Louis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Praprotnik

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 112 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, October 7, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, March 2, 1988

Advocates

Charles R. Oldham (on behalf of Respondent)

James J. Wilson (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for St. Louis, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Patterson v. Illinois

Tue, 22 Mar 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-7059

Petitioner

Patterson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 285 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, March 22, 1988

Decided

Friday, June 24, 1988

Advocates

Andrew J. Pincus (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae supporting respondent)

Donald S. Honchell (on behalf of the petitioner)

Jack Donatelli (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Deakins v. Monaghan

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-890

Petitioner

Deakins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Monaghan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 193 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, October 14, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, January 12, 1988

Advocates

Larry R. Etzweiler (on behalf of the petitioners)

Edward N. Fitzpatrick (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Flight Attendants

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1650

Petitioner

Trans World Airlines, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Flight Attendants

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 175 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, January 12, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, March 2, 1988

Advocates

Steven A. Fehr (on behalf of the Respondent)

Murray Gartner (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Department Of Navy v. Egan

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1552

Petitioner

Department Of Navy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Egan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, December 2, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1988

Advocates

Louis R. Cohen (on behalf of the Petitioner)

William J. Nold (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Department Of Navy, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 7511

None

Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1430

Petitioner

Peralta

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Heights Medical Center, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 80 (1988)

Argued

Monday, November 30, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1988

Advocates

Jack E. Urquhart (on behalf of the Appellees)

Bruce Ian Schimmel (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Peralta, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Ross v. Oklahoma

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-5309

Petitioner

Ross

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oklahoma

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 81 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, January 19, 1988

Reargued:

Monday, April 18, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, June 22, 1988

Advocates

Robert A. Nance (on behalf of the Respondent)

Gary R. Peterson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Oklahoma, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Trial By Jury

None

Reagan v. Abourezk

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-656

Petitioner

Reagan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Abourezk

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 1 (1987)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1987

Decided

Monday, October 19, 1987

Advocates

Steven R. Shapiro (on behalf of the Respondents)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bowen v. Kendrick

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-253

Petitioner

Kendrick

Respondent

Bowen

Consolidation

No. 87-431

No. 87-462

No. 87-775

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 589 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, March 30, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 27, 1988

Advocates

Janet Benshoof (Argued the cause for the appellees in Nos. 87-253, 87-431, and 87-775 and the appellants in No. 87-462)

Michael W. McConnell (Argued the cause for the appellant in No. 87-775)

Charles Fried (Argued the cause for the appellant in Nos. 87-253 and 87-431, and for the federal appellee in No. 87-462)

Facts of the Case

The Adolescent Family Life Act ("AFLA") provided federal funding for organizational services and research in the area of premarital teenage sexuality. Among other requirements, AFLA beneficiaries had to involve religious and governmental agencies in dealing with the problems they faced. Over time, AFLA benefited several organizations with institutional ties to religious denominations. Chan Kendrick, on behalf of several federal taxpayers, clergymen, and the American Jewish Congress, challenged AFLA's constitutionality. On appeal from a ruling favoring Kendrick, the Supreme Court granted Bowen certiorari.

Question

Do AFLA's provisions, requiring its beneficiaries to involve both religious and governmental organizations in addressing the problems of teenage sexual relations, violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Bowen, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 42 U.S.C. 300

No. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the "advancement of religion" was not AFLA's primary effect. Although it funded religious and other institutions without expressly prohibiting the use of such funds for religious purposes, AFLA required potential recipients to reveal what services they intended to provide and how they would provide them. Thus, the government could protect against the misuse of its funds. At the same time, however, such oversight did not create an "excessive entanglement" between church and state because AFLA merely authorized funding of religiously affiliated, rather than pervasively sectarian, organizations. Finally, the Court remanded the matter to the district court for further determination of whether AFLA violated the establishment clause "as applied."

United States Dept. Of Justice v. Julian

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1357

Petitioner

United States Dept. Of Justice

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Julian

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 1 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, January 19, 1988

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1988

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Eric R. Glitzenstein (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Julian, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

United States v. Wells Fargo Bank

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1521

Appellee

Wells Fargo Bank

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 351 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, December 8, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, March 23, 1988

Advocates

Robert H. Rotstein (on behalf of the Appellees)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Robinson

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

Location

Middle District Court of Tennessee

801 Broadway Nashville TN 37203

Nashville, TN 37203

United States

36° 9' 29.8836" N, 86° 46' 57.1368" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-937

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Robinson

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 25 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, November 3, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1988

Advocates

Lawrence S. Robbins (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Carolou Perry Durham (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Mississippi Power v. Miss. Ex Rel. Moore

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1970

Petitioner

Mississippi Power

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Miss. Ex Rel. Moore

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 354 (1988)

Argued

Monday, February 22, 1988

Decided

Friday, June 24, 1988

Advocates

Louis R. Cohen (for the United States and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), as amici curiae, in support of Appellant)

John L. Maxey, II (on behalf of Appellees)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Miss. Ex Rel. Moore, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Power

None

Braswell v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-3

Petitioner

Braswell

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. 99 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, March 1, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, June 22, 1988

Advocates

Roy T. Englert, Jr. (for the Respondent)

Michael S. Fawer (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: Self-Incrimination

None