Cases - 1988 term

Maleng v. Cook

Mon, 27 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-357

Petitioner

Maleng

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cook

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 488 (1989)

Argued

Monday, March 27, 1989

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1989

Advocates

Kenneth O. Eikenberry (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John B. Midgley (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Cook, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Mesa v. California

Tue, 06 Dec 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1206

Petitioner

Mesa

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 121 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, February 21, 1989

Advocates

Kenneth Rosenblatt (on behalf of the Respondent)

Donald B. Ayer (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for California, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1442

None

Board Of Trustees, State Univ. Of N. Y. v. Fox

Wed, 22 Feb 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-2013

Petitioner

Board Of Trustees, State Univ. Of N. Y.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fox

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

492 U.S. 469 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, February 22, 1989

Decided

Thursday, June 29, 1989

Advocates

Henry T. Reath (on behalf of the Respondents)

O. Peter Sherwood (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Board Of Trustees, State Univ. Of N. Y., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Duckworth v. Eagan

Wed, 29 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Hammond Police Station

509 Douglas Street Hammond IN 46320

Hammond, IN 46320

United States

41° 36' 53.5752" N, 87° 31' 1.9128" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-317

Petitioner

Duckworth

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Eagan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

492 U.S. 195 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, March 29, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1989

Advocates

Howard B. Eisenberg (By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the respondent)

Michael R. Lazerwitz (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

David Michael Wallman (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

When first questioned by police about the stabbing of a woman, suspect Gary Eagan did not make incriminating statements after signing a waiver and being told he would be provided a lawyer "if and when you go to court." The following day, after Eagan was questioned again and signed a different waiver, he confessed to the stabbing and revealed physical evidence of the crime. Eagan later claimed that the language of the first waiver made his confession inadmissible.

Question

Did the first warning and waiver negate the constitutional protections required by Miranda v. Arizona?

Conclusion

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

In a closely divided decision, the Court held that informing Eagan that an attorney would be appointed for him "if and when you go to court" did not render the Miranda warnings inadequate. The Court reasoned that officers did not have to use the specific language of the Miranda decision so long as they reasonably conveyed to suspects their constitutional rights. Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that the instructions given to Eagan accurately described the procedure for the appointment of counsel in Indiana.

Flight Attendants v. Zipes

Tue, 25 Apr 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-608

Petitioner

Flight Attendants

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Zipes

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 754 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, April 25, 1989

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1989

Advocates

Aram A. Hartunian (on behalf of Respondents)

Steven A. Fehr (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Flight Attendants, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

McKesson Corp. v. Florida Alcohol & Tobacco Division

Wed, 22 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-192

Petitioner

McKesson Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida Alcohol & Tobacco Division

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 18 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, March 22, 1989

Reargued:

Wednesday, December 6, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1990

Advocates

David G. Robertson (ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER IN No. 88-192)

A. Raymond Randolph (ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS IN No. 88-325)

H. Bartow Farr, III (ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS IN No. 88-192)

Andrew L. Frey (ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS IN No. 88-325)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for McKesson Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment

None

Massachusetts v. Morash

Tue, 21 Feb 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-32

Petitioner

Massachusetts

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Morash

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 107 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, February 21, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, April 18, 1989

Advocates

Jason Berger (on behalf of the Respondent)

Carl Valvo (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Massachusetts, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Stanford v. Kentucky

Mon, 27 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Checker Gasoline Station

Cane Run Road Louisville KY

Louisville, KY

United States

38° 10' 42.3804" N, 85° 51' 39.5208" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-5765

Petitioner

Kevin Stanford

Respondent

Kentucky

Consolidation

No. 87-6026

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

492 U.S. 361 (1989)

Argued

Monday, March 27, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1989

Advocates

Frederic J. Cowan (Argued the cause for Kentucky)

Nancy A. McKerrow (Argued the cause for the petitioner Wilkins)

John M. Morris, III (Argued the cause for Missouri)

Frank W. Heft, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioner Stanford)

Facts of the Case

At 17 years old, Kevin Stanford was convicted by a Kentucky jury of murder, sodomy, robbery, and the receipt of stolen property. Stanford was sentenced to death under a state statute which permitted juvenile offenders to receive the death penalty for Class A felonies or capital crimes. Stanford appealed his sentence and his case was consolidated with that of Wilkins v. Missouri, involving a 16 year old's appeal of his death sentence following a conviction for murder in Missouri. Both Stanford and Wilkins alleged that the imposition of the death penalty on offenders as young as themselves violated their constitutional rights.

Question

Does the imposition of the death sentence on convicted capital offenders below the age of 18 years old, violate the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment?

Conclusion

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

No. In a 5-to-4 decision the Court held that in weighing whether the imposition of capital punishments on offenders below the age of eighteen is cruel and unusual, it is necessary to look at the given society's evolving decency standards. With respect to American society, there is no national consensus regarding the imposition of capital punishments on 17- or 16-year- old individuals. Of the 37 states which permit capital punishment, 12 prohibit the death penalty for offenders below the age of 17 while 15 states prohibit capital punishment for 16 year olds. Moreover, discrepancies in national opinion polls, interest group views, and professional association studies, all indicate a lack of unanimity concerning the acceptability of death sentences for such relatively young offenders. Thus, the decision whether to subject 17 or 16 year olds to capital punishment must be made locally by the states and cannot be categorically pronounced as cruel and unusual punishment at this time.

Ohio Pub. Employees Retirement System v. Betts

Tue, 28 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-389

Appellee

Betts

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Ohio Pub. Employees Retirement System

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

492 U.S. 158 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, March 28, 1989

Decided

Friday, June 23, 1989

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Ohio Pub. Employees Retirement System, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Age Discrimination in Employment (ADEA)

None

Healy v. The Beer Institute

Tue, 28 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-449

Appellee

The Beer Institute

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Healy

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 88-513

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 324 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, March 28, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1989

Advocates

Robert F. Vacchelli (on behalf of the Appellants)

Jeffrey Ives Glekel (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for The Beer Institute, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Fslic

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-996

Petitioner

Coit Independence Joint Venture

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fslic

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 561 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, November 1, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, March 21, 1989

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of the Respondent)

Robert E. Goodfriend (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Coit Independence Joint Venture, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 1464

None

United States v. Zolin

Mon, 20 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-40

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Zolin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 554 (1989)

Argued

Monday, March 20, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, June 21, 1989

Advocates

Michael Lee Hertzberg (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 United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Evidence

None

Volt Info. Sciences v. Leland Stanford Jr. U.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1318

Appellee

Leland Stanford Jr. U.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Volt Info. Sciences

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 468 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, November 30, 1988

Decided

Monday, March 6, 1989

Advocates

James E. Harrington (on behalf of the Petitioner)

David M. Heilbron (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Leland Stanford Jr. U., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 9 U.S.C. 1

None

New York City Bd. Of Estimate v. Morris

Wed, 07 Dec 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1022

Appellee

Morris

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

New York City Bd. Of Estimate

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 87-1112

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 688 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, December 7, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, March 22, 1989

Advocates

Richard David Emery (on behalf of the Appellees)

Peter L. Zimroth (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

California Equalization Bd. v. Sierra Summit

Wed, 19 Apr 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-681

Petitioner

California Equalization Bd.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sierra Summit

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 844 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, April 19, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1989

Advocates

Robert F. Tyler, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

David Ray Jenkins (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for California Equalization Bd., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 960

None

Will v. Michigan Dept. Of State Police

Mon, 05 Dec 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1207

Petitioner

Will

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Michigan Dept. Of State Police

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 58 (1989)

Argued

Monday, December 5, 1988

Decided

Thursday, June 15, 1989

Advocates

William Burnham (on behalf of the Petitioner)

George H. Weller (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Michigan Dept. Of State Police, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Ward v. Rock Against Racism

Mon, 27 Feb 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-226

Petitioner

Ward

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rock Against Racism

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 781 (1989)

Argued

Monday, February 27, 1989

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1989

Advocates

Leonard J. Koerner (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

William M. Kunstler (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

New York City, responding to complaints of high-decibel concerts adjoining residential neighborhoods, mandated the use of city-provided sound systems and technicians for concerts in Central Park. Members of rock group claimed that the inability to use their own sound equipment and technicians in a concert in a public forum interfered with their First Amendment rights of expression.

Question

Does the New York ordinance substituting a city-employed technician and mixing board for a performer's mixer and equipment violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion

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

No. The Court upheld the ordinance, giving broad deference to the government's interest in maintaining order. As long as "the means chosen are not substantially broader than necessary to achieve the government's interest," a regulation will not be invalidated because a court concludes that the government's interest "could be adequately served by some less-speech- restrictive alternative."

Florida v. Riley

Mon, 03 Oct 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-764

Petitioner

Florida

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Riley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 445 (1989)

Argued

Monday, October 3, 1988

Decided

Monday, January 23, 1989

Advocates

Parker D. Thomson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Marc H. Salton (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mead Corp. v. Tilley

Wed, 22 Feb 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1868

Petitioner

Mead Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tilley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 714 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, February 22, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 5, 1989

Advocates

Patrick F. McCartan (on behalf of Petitioner)

Clifford L. Harrison (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mead Corp., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Murray v. Giarratano

Wed, 22 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-411

Petitioner

Murray

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Giarratano

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

492 U.S. 1 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, March 22, 1989

Decided

Friday, June 23, 1989

Advocates

Gerald T. Zerkin (on behalf of the respondents)

Robert Q. Harris (on behalf of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Fslic v. Ticktin

Mon, 27 Feb 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1865

Petitioner

Fslic

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ticktin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 82 (1989)

Argued

Monday, February 27, 1989

Decided

Monday, April 3, 1989

Advocates

James B. Koch (on behalf of the Respondents)

Richard G. Taranto (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Fslic, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1345

None

Carlucci v. Doe

Tue, 11 Oct 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-751

Petitioner

Carlucci

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Doe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 93 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, October 11, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, December 6, 1988

Advocates

Michael K. Kellogg (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John G. Gill, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Carlucci, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 833

None

United States v. Monsanto

Tue, 21 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-454

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Monsanto

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 600 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, March 21, 1989

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1989

Advocates

Edward M. Chikofsky (on behalf of the Petitioner)

William C. Bryson (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: 21 U.S.C. 853

None

Carella v. California

Wed, 26 Apr 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-6997

Appellee

California

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Carella

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 263 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, April 26, 1989

Decided

Thursday, June 15, 1989

Advocates

Christopher D. Cerf (on behalf of the Appellant)

Arnold T. Guminski (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Harbison-Walker Refractories, v. Brieck

Mon, 31 Oct 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-271

Petitioner

Harbison-Walker Refractories,

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brieck

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 226 (1988)

Argued

Monday, October 31, 1988

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1988

Advocates

Andrew M. Kramer (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Brian J. Martin (on behalf of the Respondent)

James P. Logan (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Exp.

Mon, 27 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-385

Petitioner

Rodriguez De Quijas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shearson/Am. Exp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 477 (1989)

Argued

Monday, March 27, 1989

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1989

Advocates

Theodore A. Krebsbach (on behalf of the Respondents)

Denis A. Downey (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Shearson/Am. Exp., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Kentucky Dept. Of Corrections v. Thompson

Wed, 18 Jan 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1815

Petitioner

Kentucky Dept. Of Corrections

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thompson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 454 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, January 18, 1989

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1989

Advocates

Joseph S. Elder, II (on behalf of the Respondents)

Barbara A. Jones (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Kentucky Dept. Of Corrections, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Karahalios v. Federal Employees

Tue, 17 Jan 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-636

Petitioner

Karahalios

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Federal Employees

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 527 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, January 17, 1989

Decided

Monday, March 6, 1989

Advocates

Richard G. Taranto (as Amicus Curiae supporting the Respondent)

Thomas R. Duffy (on behalf of the Petitioner)

H. Stephan Gordon (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Federal Employees, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 7101

None

Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council

Mon, 09 Jan 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1704

Petitioner

Marsh

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oregon Natural Resources Council

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 360 (1989)

Argued

Monday, January 9, 1989

Decided

Monday, May 1, 1989

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Marsh, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Environmental Policy

None

Rhodes v. Stewart

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:10:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-139

Petitioner

Rhodes

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stewart

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 1 (1988)

Decided

Monday, October 17, 1988

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Rhodes, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

Colonial Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Commissioner

Tue, 18 Apr 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-396

Petitioner

Colonial Am. Life Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Commissioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 244 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, April 18, 1989

Decided

Thursday, June 15, 1989

Advocates

Carolyn P. Chiechi (on behalf of Petitioner)

Michael R. Dreeben (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Jones v. Thomas

Wed, 26 Apr 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-420

Petitioner

Jones

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thomas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 376 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, April 26, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1989

Advocates

Springfield Baldwin (on behalf of the Respondent)

Stephen D. Hawke (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey

Tue, 04 Oct 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-981

Petitioner

Beech Aircraft Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rainey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 87-1028

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 153 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, October 4, 1988

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1988

Advocates

Dennis K. Larry (on behalf of the Respondent)

Joseph W. Womack (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Beech Aircraft Corp., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Evidence

None

Lockhart v. Nelson

Mon, 03 Oct 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1277

Petitioner

Lockhart

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nelson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 33 (1988)

Argued

Monday, October 3, 1988

Decided

Monday, November 14, 1988

Advocates

J. Steven Clark (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John Wesley Hall, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Lockhart, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio

Wed, 18 Jan 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Wards Cove Packing Co.

5961 North Tongass Highway Ketchikan AK 99901

Ketchikan, AK 99901

United States

55° 23' 48.7032" N, 131° 43' 42.474" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1387

Petitioner

Wards Cove Packing Co. et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Frank Atonio et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 642 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, January 18, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 5, 1989

Advocates

Douglas M. Fryer (argued the cause for the petitioners)

Abraham A. Arditi (argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Wards Cove Packing Co. employed primarily nonwhite workers for unskilled seasonal jobs canning fish. A group of nonwhite workers filed suit in federal district court alleging that Wards Cove practiced discriminatory hiring in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As evidence, the group compared the high percentage of nonwhites in unskilled work with the high percentage of whites in skilled work. The District Court rejected this claim because it found that Ward received unskilled workers through a hiring agency that enrolled primarily nonwhites. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. It held that Ward had the burden of proof to show that its hiring practices were not discriminatory after the claimants presented evidence of racial disparity.

Question

Once employees present evidence of racial disparity among different classes of jobs, does the employer have to justify this disparity as a "business necessity" in order to avoid a "disparate impact" lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Wards Cove Packing Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

No. Justice Byron R. White delivered the opinion for a 5-4 court. The fact that one class of jobs at a firm has a higher percentage of nonwhites than another class does not by itself prove that the firm practices discriminatory hiring. Comparisons of race percentages among different job classes could wrongfully blame the employer, since what appears to show racial discrimination could in reality reflect the racial differences that exist in the labor market at large. Instead, the Court held that "the proper comparison is generally between the racial composition of the at-issue jobs and the racial composition of the qualified population in the relevant labor market." If a substantial difference is found, then the claimants must show that it is the result of a hiring practice of the employer.

Hoffman v. Connecticut Income Maint. Dept.

Wed, 19 Apr 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-412

Petitioner

Hoffman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Connecticut Income Maint. Dept.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

492 U.S. 96 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, April 19, 1989

Decided

Friday, June 23, 1989

Advocates

Thomas W. Merrill (on behalf of the Federal Respondent)

Clarine Nardi Riddle (on behalf of the State Respondent)

Martin W. Hoffman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Connecticut Income Maint. Dept., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Graham

Tue, 21 Feb 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-266

Petitioner

Oklahoma Tax Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Graham

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 838 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, February 21, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, March 29, 1989

Advocates

David Allen Miley (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Bob Rabon (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Oklahoma Tax Commission, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1331

None

Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain

Mon, 24 Apr 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-774

Petitioner

Newman-Green, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alfonzo-Larrain

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 826 (1989)

Argued

Monday, April 24, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1989

Advocates

Phil Caldwell Neal (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Frank K. Heap (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Newman-Green, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1653

None

Mallard v. United States District Court

Tue, 28 Feb 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1490

Petitioner

Mallard

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States District Court

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 296 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, February 28, 1989

Decided

Monday, May 1, 1989

Advocates

John E. Mallard (on behalf of Petitioner)

Gordon E. Allen (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mallard, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1915

None

Michael H. v. Gerald D.

Tue, 11 Oct 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Location

California State Capitol

10th Street and L Street Sacramento CA 95814

Sacramento, CA 95814

United States

38° 34' 41.1852" N, 121° 29' 39.8832" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-746

Appellant

Michael H. et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Gerald D.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 110 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, October 11, 1988

Decided

Thursday, June 15, 1989

Advocates

Robert A.W. Boraks (argued the cause for the appellants)

Larry M. Hoffman (argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Gerald D. was the presumptive father of Victoria D. since she was born to his wife Carole D.. However, Carole had an adulterous partner, Michael H., who obtained blood tests indicating that he was likely the biological father. When Michael obtained visitation rights in a California state court, Gerald argued that Michael had no ground under California law to challenge Gerald's paternity since more than two years had passed since Victoria's birth. According to Cal. Evid. Code 621, the child is "presumed to be a child of the marriage" and another man can only challenge this presumption within two years of birth. The court ruled in favor of Gerald and canceled Michael's visitation rights. Michael claimed that Code 621 violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by denying him an opportunity to establish his paternity. A California Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of Code 621.

Question

Does Cal. Evid. Code 621 violate the Due Process Clause by denying a possible biological father the chance to establish his paternity of a child after two years have passed since the child's birth?

Conclusion

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

No. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the judgment for a 5-4 court. Based on its analysis of common-law tradition, the plurality opinion found that a possible biological father does not have a fundamental right to obtain parental rights after the presumptive father has exercised significant responsibility over the child. Therefore due process protection does not apply. Code 621 was based on common-law precedent which showed "an aversion to declaring children illegitimate" and supported "the interest in promoting the 'peace and tranquility of States and families.'" Restricting Michael's parental rights achieved this by granting Gerald the sole responsibility to play the role of Victoria's father.

Allegheny v. ACLU

Wed, 22 Feb 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Allegheny County Courthouse

436 Grant Street Pittsburgh PA 15239

Pittsburgh, PA 15239

United States

40° 26' 19.6584" N, 79° 59' 47.058" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-2050

Petitioner

Allegheny

Respondent

ACLU

Consolidation

Chabad v. American Civil Liberties Union et al., No. 88-90

City of Pittsburgh v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, et al., No. 88-96

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, February 22, 1989

Decided

Monday, July 3, 1989

Advocates

Peter Buscemi (Argued the cause for the petitioners in Nos. 87-2050 and 88-96)

Roslyn M. Litman (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Nathan Lewin (Argued the cause for the petitioner in No. 88-90)

Facts of the Case

Two public-sponsored holiday displays in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, were challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union. The first display involved a Christian nativity scene inside the Allegheny County Courthouse. The second display was a large Chanukah menorah, erected each year by the Chabad Jewish organization, outside the City-County building. The ACLU claimed the displays constituted state endorsement of religion. This case was decided together with Chabad v. ACLU and City of Pittsburgh v. ACLU of Greater Pittsburgh.

Question

Did the public displays violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for ACLU, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the creche inside the courthouse unmistakably endorsed Christianity in violation of the Establishment Clause. By prominently displaying the words "Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ," the county sent a clear message that it supported and promoted Christian orthodoxy. The Court also held, however, that not all religious celebrations on government property violated the Establishment Clause. Six of the justices concluded that the display involving the menorah was constitutionally legitimate given its "particular physical setting."

Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1327

Appellee

New Mexico

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Cotton Petroleum Corp.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 163 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, November 30, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, April 25, 1989

Advocates

Daniel H. Israel (on behalf of the Appellants)

Harold D. Stratton (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for New Mexico, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 25 U.S.C. 396

None

Arizona v. Youngblood

Tue, 11 Oct 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1904

Petitioner

Arizona

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Youngblood

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 51 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, October 11, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, November 29, 1988

Advocates

Daniel F. Davis (on behalf of the Respondent)

John R. Gustafson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Eu v. San Francisco Democratic Comm.

Mon, 05 Dec 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1269

Appellee

San Francisco Democratic Comm.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 214 (1989)

Argued

Monday, December 5, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, February 22, 1989

Advocates

James G. Brosnahan (on behalf of the Appellees)

Geoffrey Lloyd Graybill (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for San Francisco Democratic Comm., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock

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

Location

Texas State Comptroller

111 E 17th St Austin TX 78711

Austin, TX 78711

United States

30° 16' 42.42" N, 97° 44' 17.8476" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1245

Appellant

Texas Monthly, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Bob Bullock, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas et al.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 1 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, November 1, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, February 21, 1989

Advocates

Roger J. George, Jr. (argued the cause for the appellant)

Harriet D. Burke (Assistant Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for appellees)

Facts of the Case

The state of Texas offered a tax exemption to religious publications during a 3-year period. Texas Monthly, Inc, a nonreligious publisher, claimed that this promoted religion in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Texas Monthly filed suit in a state court seeking to recover the taxes it had paid in 1985. The court ruled that the exemption violated the Establishment Clause by advancing religion and the Free Press Clause by discriminating based on the content of publications. Since the court did not have the authority to rewrite tax statutes, it instead invalidated taxes levied on nonreligious publications and ordered the state to refund Texas Monthly's tax payments. A state appeals court reversed the decision.

Question

Does a state violate the Establishment Clause and the Free Press Clause by exempting religious publications from paying taxes that all nonreligious publications must pay?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Texas Monthly, Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

Yes. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. delivered the judgment for 6-3 court a wrote a plurality opinion joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Thurgood Marshall. In the Brennan's view, the Texas government "directs a subsidy exclusively to religious organizations" by providing the exemption. The Court referred to its decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which required legislation affecting religion to have a secular purpose. In this case, the exemption did not have a secular purpose since it could not "reasonably be seen as removing a significant state-imposed deterrent to the free exercise of religion." Since taxing religious publications did not inhibit the exercise of religion, a state could not singularly remove taxes for religious publications while still taxing nonreligious publications. This would use state mechanisms to give religious publishers an advantage over nonreligious publishers in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co.

Wed, 18 Jan 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1816

Petitioner

Green

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bock Laundry Machine Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 504 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, January 18, 1989

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1989

Advocates

Thomas D. Caldwell, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Joseph M. Melillo (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Bock Laundry Machine Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Evidence

None

New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. New Orleans

Tue, 25 Apr 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-348

Petitioner

New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New Orleans

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 350 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, April 25, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1989

Advocates

Clinton A. Vince (on behalf of Respondents)

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

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Perry v. Leeke

Tue, 08 Nov 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-6325

Petitioner

Perry

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Leeke

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 272 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, November 8, 1988

Decided

Sunday, January 1, 1989

Advocates

Donald John Zelenka (on behalf of Respondents)

W. Gaston Fairey (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Goldberg v. Sweet

Wed, 12 Oct 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-826

Appellee

Sweet

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Goldberg

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 87-1101

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 252 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, October 12, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, January 10, 1989

Advocates

Walter A. Smith, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellants)

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Sweet, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Quinn v. Millsap

Tue, 25 Apr 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1048

Appellee

Millsap

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Quinn

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 95 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, April 25, 1989

Decided

Thursday, June 15, 1989

Advocates

Simon B. Buckner (on behalf of Appellees)

Kevin M. O'Keefe (on behalf of Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Pittston Coal Group v. Sebben

Mon, 03 Oct 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-821

Petitioner

Pittston Coal Group

Respondent

Sebben

Consolidation

No. 87-827

No. 87-1095

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 105 (1988)

Argued

Monday, October 3, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, December 6, 1988

Advocates

Mark E. Solomons (for the Private Petitioners:)

Paul M. Smith (for the Respondents:)

Donald B. Ayer (for the Federal Petitioners:)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Sebben, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 30 U.S.C. 902

None

Canton v. Harris

Tue, 08 Nov 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1088

Petitioner

Canton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Harris

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 378 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, November 8, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, February 28, 1989

Advocates

David Rudovsky (on behalf of the Respondents)

Carter G. Phillips (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Canton, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Jett v. Dallas Independent School Dist.

Tue, 28 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-2084

Petitioner

Jett

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dallas Independent School Dist.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Dallas Independent School District v. Jett, No. 88-214

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 701 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, March 28, 1989

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1989

Advocates

Leonard J. Schwartz (on behalf of the respondent/petitioner Dallas Independent School District)

Frank M. Gilstrap (on behalf of the petitioner/respondent Jett)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Dallas Independent School Dist., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1981)

None

Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co.

Mon, 31 Oct 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1241

Petitioner

Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Union Gas Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 1 (1989)

Argued

Monday, October 31, 1988

Decided

Thursday, June 15, 1989

Advocates

John George Knorr, III (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Robert A. Swift (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Union Gas Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 42 U.S.C. 9601

None

Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.

Wed, 05 Oct 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Location

City Council of Richmond

900 East Broad Street Richmond VA 23219

Richmond, VA 23219

United States

37° 32' 27.4884" N, 77° 25' 58.7244" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-998

Appellee

J.A. Croson Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Richmond

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 469 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, October 5, 1988

Decided

Monday, January 23, 1989

Advocates

Walter H. Ryland (Argued the cause for the appellee)

John A. Payton (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Facts of the Case

In 1983, the City Council of Richmond, Virginia adopted regulations that required companies awarded city construction contracts to subcontract 30 percent of their business to minority business enterprises. The J.A. Croson Company, which lost its contract because of the 30 percent set-aside, brought suit against the city.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for J.A. Croson Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that "generalized assertions" of past racial discrimination could not justify "rigid" racial quotas for the awarding of public contracts. Justice O'Connor's opinion noted that the 30 percent quota could not be tied to "any injury suffered by anyone," and was an impermissible employment of a suspect classification. O'Connor further held that allowing claims of past discrimination to serve as the basis for racial quotas would actually subvert constitutional values: "The dream of a Nation of equal citizens in a society where race is irrelevant to personal opportunity and achievement would be lost in a mosaic of shifting preferences based on inherently unmeasurable claims of past wrongs."

Asarco Inc. v. Kadish

Mon, 27 Feb 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1661

Petitioner

Asarco Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kadish

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 605 (1989)

Argued

Monday, February 27, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, May 30, 1989

Advocates

David S. Baron (on behalf of the Respondents)

Daniel M. Gribbon (on behalf of the Petitioners)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

California v. Arc America Corp.

Mon, 27 Feb 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1862

Appellee

Arc America Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

California

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 93 (1989)

Argued

Monday, February 27, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, April 18, 1989

Advocates

Roy T. Englert, Jr. (as Amicus Curiae, in support of Appellants)

Theodore B. Olson (on behalf of Appellees)

Thomas Greene (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for California, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Texas Teachers Assn. v. Garland School Dist.

Wed, 01 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1759

Petitioner

Texas Teachers Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Garland School Dist.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 782 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, March 1, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, March 28, 1989

Advocates

Robert H. Chanin (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Earl Luna (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Texas Teachers Assn., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

South Carolina v. Gathers

Tue, 28 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-305

Petitioner

South Carolina

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gathers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 805 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, March 28, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1989

Advocates

Donald John Zelenka (on behalf of the Petitioner)

William Isaac Diggs (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mansell v. Mansell

Tue, 10 Jan 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-201

Appellee

Mansell

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mansell

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 581 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, January 10, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, May 30, 1989

Advocates

Dennis A. Cornell (on behalf of the Appellee)

Douglas B. Cone (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Mansell, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 10 U.S.C. 1408

None

Tompkins v. Texas

Tue, 06 Dec 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-6405

Petitioner

Tompkins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Texas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 754 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 5, 1989

Advocates

Charles A. Palmer (on behalf of the Respondent)

Emmett B. Lewis, III (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Halper

Tue, 17 Jan 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1383

Petitioner

Halper

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 435 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, January 17, 1989

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1989

Advocates

Michael R. Dreeben (Argued the cause for the United States)

John G. Roberts, Jr. (Argued the cause as amicus curiae in support of the decision below)

Facts of the Case

Irwin Halper, the manager of a company that provided medical services to patients eligible for Medicare benefits, was charged and convicted in criminal court of submitting 65 separate false Medicare claims. He was sentenced to two years in prison and fined $5,000.

The United States then brought additional civil charges under the False Claims Act, which authorized it to collect $2000 for each offense in addition to attorney's fees and twice the damages sustained. In this case the actual damages were just $585, but because of the number of offenses the total penalty was more than $130,000. The District Court, however, ruled that the penalty was "entirely unrelated" to the government's actual damages and would therefore be a second punishment for the same offense, violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The penalty was therefore limited to double the amount of actual damages and attorney's fees. The government appealed the decision directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Question

Where the penalty authorized under the False Claims Act is "entirely unrelated" to the damages actually suffered by the government, does imposition of the penalty amount to a "punishment" governed by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Halper, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

Yes. Justice Harry Blackmun, on behalf of a unanimous Supreme Court, wrote that while previous cases had held penalties under the Act to be civil in nature, that did not foreclose the possibility of the penalty being so extreme and so unrelated to the actual damages as to constitute "punishment." Because Halper had already been jailed and fined, additional punishment in a separate proceeding would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court remanded the case to the District Court so that the government could challenge the original assessment of its attorney's fees.

Brendale v. Confederated Yakima Indian Nation

Tue, 10 Jan 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1622

Petitioner

Brendale

Respondent

Confederated Yakima Indian Nation

Consolidation

No. 87-1697

No. 87-1711

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

492 U.S. 408 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, January 10, 1989

Decided

Thursday, June 29, 1989

Advocates

Jeffrey C. Sullivan (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Tim Weaver (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Confederated Yakima Indian Nation, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 Stat. 951

None

United States v. Broce

Tue, 04 Oct 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1190

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Broce

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 563 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, October 4, 1988

Decided

Monday, January 23, 1989

Advocates

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

Glenn E. Casebeer, III (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Amerada Hess Corp. v. N. J. Taxation Di

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-453

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Amerada Hess Corp. v. N. J. Taxation Di

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 87-464

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 66 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, November 29, 1988

Decided

Monday, April 3, 1989

Advocates

Mark L. Evans (on behalf of the Appellants)

Mary R. Hamill (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for N. J. Taxation Di, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Thornburgh v. Abbott

Tue, 08 Nov 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1344

Petitioner

Thornburgh

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Abbott

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 401 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, November 8, 1988

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1989

Advocates

William C. Bryson (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Steven Ney (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Nat. Treas. Employees Union v. Von Raab

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

Location

National Treasury Employees Union

"1750 H Street**** N.W." Washington DC 20006

Washington, DC 20006

United States

38° 53' 59.8848" N, 77° 2' 26.6856" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1879

Petitioner

Nat. Treas. Employees Union

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Von Raab

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 656 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, November 2, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, March 21, 1989

Advocates

Charles Fried (on behalf of the Respondent)

Lois G. Williams (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

In 1986, the United States Customs Service implemented a drug testing program for certain employees who either carry firearms, are involved in intercepting drugs as they enter the country, or are in high level positions involving classified information.

Question

Did the regulations violate the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

No. The Court held that the "substantial interests" of the government in stifling the drug trade justified "departure from the ordinary warrant and probable cause requirements" associated with searches. The fact that customs personnel are the country's "first line of defense" against drug smugglers and they are exposed to a sometimes aggressive criminal element, places them in a unique and important position in which they have a "diminished expectation of privacy."

Blanchard v. Bergeron

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1485

Petitioner

Blanchard

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bergeron

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 87 (1989)

Argued

Monday, November 28, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, February 21, 1989

Advocates

William W. Rosen (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Edmond L. Guidry, III (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Blanchard, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital

Tue, 11 Oct 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1097

Petitioner

Bowen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Georgetown University Hospital

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 204 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, October 11, 1988

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1988

Advocates

Ronald N. Sutter (on behalf of the Respondents)

Richard J. Lazarus (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lorance v. At&T Technologies, Inc.

Mon, 20 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1428

Petitioner

Lorance

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

At&T Technologies, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 900 (1989)

Argued

Monday, March 20, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1989

Advocates

David W. Carpenter (on behalf of the Respondents)

Charles A. Shanor (as amici curiae, supporting the Petitioners)

Barry L. Goldstein (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for At&T Technologies, Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

Wed, 26 Apr 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Reproductive Health Services

4251 Forest Park Avenue St. Louis MO 63108

St. Louis, MO 63108

United States

38° 38' 13.722" N, 90° 15' 4.3452" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-605

Appellee

Reproductive Health Services

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Webster

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

492 U.S. 490 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, April 26, 1989

Decided

Monday, July 3, 1989

Advocates

Frank Susman (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Charles Fried (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

William L. Webster (Pro se, argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

In 1986, the state of Missouri enacted legislation that placed a number of restrictions on abortions. The statute's preamble indicated that "[t]he life of each human being begins at conception," and the law codified the following restrictions: public employees and public facilities were not to be used in performing or assisting abortions unnecessary to save the mother's life; encouragement and counseling to have abortions was prohibited; and physicians were to perform viability tests upon women in their twentieth (or more) week of pregnancy. Lower courts struck down the restrictions.

Question

Did the Missouri restrictions unconstitutionally infringe upon the right to privacy or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

In a controversial and highly fractured decision, the Court held that none of the challenged provisions of the Missouri legislation were unconstitutional. First, the Court held that the preamble had not been applied in any concrete manner for the purposes of restricting abortions, and thus did not present a constitutional question. Second, the Court held that the Due Process Clause did not require states to enter into the business of abortion, and did not create an affirmative right to governmental aid in the pursuit of constitutional rights. Third, the Court found that no case or controversy existed in relation to the counseling provisionsof the law. Finally, the Court upheld the viability testing requirements, arguing that the State's interest in protecting potential life could come into existence before the point of viability. The Court emphasized that it was not revisiting the essential portions of the holding in Roe v. Wade.

U.S. Dept. Of Justice v. Reporters Committee

Wed, 07 Dec 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1379

Petitioner

U.S. Dept. Of Justice

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reporters Committee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 749 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, December 7, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, March 22, 1989

Advocates

Roy T. Englert, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Kevin T. Baine (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

CBS requested the criminal identification records of Charles Medico from the FBI. When the FBI refused the request, a CBS news correspondent and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) challenged the denial as a violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). RCFP claimed that since Medico was an identified organized crime figure with corrupt ties to a United States Congressman, Medico's criminal record was a matter of "public record" and "interest." On appeal from an unfavorable appellate decision, the Supreme Court granted the U.S. Department of Justice certiorari.

Question

Is a refusal to disclose an individual's personal FBI crime record to a third party justifiable under the "personal privacy" invasion exemption of the Freedom of Information Act?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for U.S. Dept. Of Justice, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that an individual's interest in nondisclosure of any criminal records that the FBI might have on him or her is precisely the sort of "personal privacy" that Congress intended to protect when it enacted FOIA exemptions. Balancing public knowledge interests against privacy considerations, the Court explained that RCFP's request was overly broad. The request sought access to all FBI records on Medico, rather than specific information concerning his file. Moreover, the Court stated that public interest in criminal record information is not increased simply because the requesting party is a news agency.

Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping

Tue, 06 Dec 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1372

Petitioner

Argentine Republic

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Amerada Hess Shipping

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 428 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1988

Decided

Monday, January 23, 1989

Advocates

Douglas R. Burnett (on behalf of the Respondent)

Bruno A. Ristau (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Charles Fried (as Amicus Curiae supporting the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Argentine Republic, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1330

None

Martin v. Wilks

Wed, 18 Jan 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1614

Petitioner

Martin

Respondent

Wilks

Consolidation

No. 87-1639

No. 87-1668

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 755 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, January 18, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1989

Advocates

Thomas W. Merrill (Argued the cause for the United States)

Robert D. Joffe (Argued the cause for the petitioners in the Martin case)

Raymond P. Fitzpatrick, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondents Wilks et al)

James P. Alexander (Argued the cause for the petitioners in the Personnel Board and Arrington cases)

Facts of the Case

As a result of a lawsuit in 1974, the Jefferson County Personnel Board in Birmingham, Alabama, entered into consent decrees that included hiring blacks as firefighters and for promoting them. The decrees were approved by a federal district court. Years later, Robert K. Wilks, a white firefighter, challenged the decrees and alleged that whites were being denied promotions in favor of less qualified blacks. Wilks argued that such practices violated Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The personnel board agreed that it was making race-conscious decisions but argued it was doing so pursuant to the original decrees. The Court combined arguments in two companion cases: Personnel Board v. Wilks and Arrington v. Wilks.

Question

Did Wilks and other white firefighters have a constitutional right to challenge the previously established decrees?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that because "a person cannot be deprived of his legal rights in a proceeding to which he is not a party," the white firefighters were not precluded from challenging employment decisions taken pursuant to the consent decrees. The Court argued that "[t]he parties to a lawsuit presumably know better than anyone else the nature and scope of relief sought in the action" and that they were better suited to intervene when their rights were immediately threatened. Conversely, the Court noted that "[n]o one can seriously contend that an employer might successfully defend against a Title VII claim by one group of employees on the ground that its actions were required by an earlier decree entered in a suit brought against it by another, if the later group did not have adequate notice or knowledge of the earlier suit."

Brower v. Inyo County

Wed, 11 Jan 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-248

Petitioner

Brower

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Inyo County

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 593 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, March 21, 1989

Advocates

Philip W. McDowell (on behalf of the Respondents)

Robert Gene Gilmore (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mistretta v. United States

Wed, 05 Oct 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Residence of John Mistretta Greenville, SC

United States

34° 51' 9.4248" N, 82° 23' 38.436" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-7028

Petitioner

John Mistretta

Respondent

United States

Consolidation

United States v. Mistretta, No. 87-1904

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 361 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, October 5, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, January 18, 1989

Advocates

Paul M. Bator (Argued the cause for the United States Sentencing Commission as amicus curiae urging affirmance)

Alan B. Morrison (Argued the cause for the petitioner in No. 87-7028 and the respondent in No. 87-1904)

Charles Fried (Argued the cause for the United States in both cases)

Facts of the Case

Congress created the United States Sentencing Commission under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. This Commission was to attack the wide discrepancies in sentencing by federal court judges by creating sentencing guidelines for all federal offenses. It was to be part of the judicial branch, with members appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. John Mistretta (convicted of three counts of selling cocaine) claimed that the Act violated the delegation-of-powers principle by giving the Commission "excessive legislative powers." This case was decided together with United States v. Mistretta.

Question

Did the Act violate the nondelegation doctrine of the Constitution?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 3551

The Court found the Act to be valid because although Congress cannot generally delegate its legislative power to another Branch, the nondelegation doctrine does not prevent Congress from obtaining assistance from coordinate Branches. The test of validity is that an "intelligible principle" must be established by the legislature where the agency of the delegated authority must adhere to specific directives that govern its authority. The delegation to the Commission was sufficiently detailed and specific to meet these requirements. The Commission was given substantial authority and discretion in setting the guidelines; however, Congress established a classification hierarchy for federal crimes that the Commission was to use as an outline for its work.

Northwest Cent. Pipeline v. Kan. Corp. Comm'n

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1856

Appellee

Kan. Corp. Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Northwest Cent. Pipeline

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 493 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, November 29, 1988

Decided

Monday, March 6, 1989

Advocates

Frank A. Caro, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellees)

Harold L. Talisman (on behalf of the Appellant)

Michael R. Lazerwitz (as Amici Curiae supporting Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Kan. Corp. Comm'n, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Ncaa v. Tarkanian

Wed, 05 Oct 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1061

Petitioner

Ncaa

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tarkanian

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 179 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, October 5, 1988

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1988

Advocates

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Samuel S. Lionel (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Graham v. Connor

Tue, 21 Feb 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-6571

Petitioner

Graham

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Connor

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 386 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, February 21, 1989

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1989

Advocates

H. Gerald Beaver (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Mark I. Levy (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

American Trucking Associations v. Smith

Wed, 22 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-325

Petitioner

American Trucking Associations

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Smith

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 167 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, March 22, 1989

Reargued:

Wednesday, December 6, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1990

Advocates

A. Raymond Randolph (Reargued the cause for the respondents)

Andrew L. Frey (Reargued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

In 1983, the American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) challenged the flat tax portion of Arkansas' Highway Use Equalization (HUE) tax, alleging that it violated the Commerce Clause. The Arkansas Supreme Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, rejected this claim. Subsequently, on June 23, 1987, the Supreme Court decided American Trucking Ass'ns., Inc. v. Scheiner, 483 U.S. 266 (1987), which held that state application of flat highway use taxes was unconstitutional. Pending re-hearing in the Arkansas Supreme Court, Justice Blackmun ordered, in August 1987, that all new taxes collected be kept in escrow. Subsequently, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that HUE was unconstitutional, but that Scheiner did not apply retroactively. The court went on to decide that taxes already collected for the tax year beginning July 1, 1987, could remain in the state treasury, but that those funds placed in the escrow account ordered by Justice Blackmun should be refunded, as they had not been spent or budgeted for future spending.

Question

(1) Does the Court's decision in Scheiner apply retroactively? (2) Even if the Scheiner decision does not apply retroactively, can the state keep taxes collected before the escrow account was established when those taxes are for the tax year July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988, a period after Scheiner?

Conclusion

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

No and no. A plurality of the Court held that Scheiner did not apply retroactively, and that state collection of taxes for the tax year beginning July 1, 1987, before the establishment of the escrow account, was unconstitutional. Applying the test of non-retroactivity articulated in Chevron Oil v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97 (1971), the Court found that Scheiner clearly established a new principle of law; that the purpose of the Commerce Clause did not support retroactive application; and that equitable considerations weighed heavily against retroactivity. The Court went on to reverse the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision not to refund taxes already collected for the tax year beginning July 1, 1987, reasoning that the conduct to which Scheiner applied prospectively was the use of the highway, not the payment of money therefor. Justice Scalia concurred in the result, but disagreed with the plurality's retroactivity analysis. He found that the only reason to follow Scheiner, which he believed to be wrongly decided, was the doctrine of stare decisis, which only applies prospectively.

Hernandez v. Commissioner

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-963

Petitioner

Hernandez

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Commissioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 87-1616

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 680 (1989)

Argued

Monday, November 28, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 5, 1989

Advocates

Thomas W. Merrill (on behalf of the Respondents)

Michael J. Graetz (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Commissioner, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Alabama v. Smith

Mon, 24 Apr 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-333

Petitioner

Alabama

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Smith

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 794 (1989)

Argued

Monday, April 24, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1989

Advocates

P. David Bjurberg (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Delores R. Boyd (on behalf of the Respondent)

Paul J. Larkin, Jr. (amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Alabama, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Massachusetts v. Oakes

Tue, 17 Jan 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1651

Petitioner

Massachusetts

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oakes

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 576 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, January 17, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, June 21, 1989

Advocates

Richard J. Vita (on behalf of the Respondent)

James M. Shannon (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal v. Webster County

Wed, 07 Dec 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1303

Petitioner

Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Webster County

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 87-1310

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 336 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, December 7, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, January 18, 1989

Advocates

William Ullrich (on behalf of the Respondent)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States

Tue, 17 Jan 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1905

Petitioner

Midland Asphalt Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 794 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, January 17, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, March 28, 1989

Advocates

Richard James Braun (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Lawrence S. Robbins (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Skinner v. Mid-America Pipeline Co.

Wed, 01 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-2098

Appellee

Mid-America Pipeline Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Skinner

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 212 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, March 1, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, April 25, 1989

Advocates

Richard McMillan, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellee)

Thomas W. Merrill (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Skinner, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 49 U.S.C. 1682

None

Mcnamara v. County, San Diego Dept., Soc. Ser.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-5840

Petitioner

Mcnamara

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

County, San Diego Dept., Soc. Ser.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 152 (1988)

Argued

Monday, November 28, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, December 6, 1988

Advocates

James E. Sutherland (on behalf of the Appellant)

Lloyd Harmon, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for County, San Diego Dept., Soc. Ser., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch

Mon, 07 Nov 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1160

Appellee

Barasch

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Duquesne Light Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 299 (1989)

Argued

Monday, November 7, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, January 11, 1989

Advocates

Peter Buscemi (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Irwin A. Popowsky (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Barasch, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

None

Department Of Justice v. Tax Analysts

Mon, 24 Apr 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-782

Petitioner

Department Of Justice

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tax Analysts

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

492 U.S. 136 (1989)

Argued

Monday, April 24, 1989

Decided

Friday, June 23, 1989

Advocates

William A. Dobrovir (on behalf of the Respondent)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Tax Analysts, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Granfinanciera, S. A. v. Nordberg

Mon, 09 Jan 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1716

Petitioner

Granfinanciera, S. A.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nordberg

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

492 U.S. 33 (1989)

Argued

Monday, January 9, 1989

Decided

Friday, June 23, 1989

Advocates

Laurence H. Tribe (on behalf of the Respondents)

Adam Lawrence (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Granfinanciera, S. A., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 7: Seventh Amendment

None

Dallas v. Stanglin

Wed, 01 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1848

Petitioner

Dallas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stanglin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 19 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, March 1, 1989

Decided

Monday, April 3, 1989

Advocates

Daniel J. Sheehan, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Craig Lee Hopkins (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Oring v. State Bar Of California

Tue, 10 Jan 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1224

Appellee

State Bar Of California

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Oring

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 590 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, January 10, 1989

Decided

Monday, January 23, 1989

Advocates

Theodore A. Cohen (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Diane C. Yu (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for State Bar Of California, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council

Mon, 09 Jan 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1703

Petitioner

Robertson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Methow Valley Citizens Council

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 332 (1989)

Argued

Monday, January 9, 1989

Decided

Monday, May 1, 1989

Advocates

David A. Bricklin (on behalf of the Respondents)

Charles Fried (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Robertson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Environmental Policy

None

Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd.

Wed, 07 Dec 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1055

Petitioner

Chan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Korean Air Lines, Ltd.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 122 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, December 7, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, April 18, 1989

Advocates

George N. Tompkins, Jr. (on behalf of Respondent)

Milton G. Sincoff (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Richard J. Lazarus (Amicus Curiae, supporting petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Korean Air Lines, Ltd., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Treaty

None

Consol. Rail Corp. v. Railway Labor Executives

Tue, 28 Feb 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1

Petitioner

Consol. Rail Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Railway Labor Executives

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 299 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, February 28, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1989

Advocates

John O'B. Clarke, Jr. (on behalf of Respondents)

Dennis J. Morikawa (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Consol. Rail Corp., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Railway Labor

None

Dellmuth v. Muth

Tue, 28 Feb 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1855

Petitioner

Dellmuth

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Muth

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 223 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, February 28, 1989

Decided

Thursday, June 15, 1989

Advocates

Maria Parisi Vickers (on behalf of Petitioner)

Martha A Field (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Dellmuth, 4 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

Sullivan v. Hudson

Mon, 17 Apr 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-616

Petitioner

Sullivan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hudson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 877 (1989)

Argued

Monday, April 17, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1989

Advocates

James E. Coleman, Jr. (on behalf of Respondent)

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hudson, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Access to Justice

None

Frank v. Minnesota Newspaper Assn., Inc.

Wed, 22 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1956

Appellee

Minnesota Newspaper Assn., Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Frank

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 225 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, March 22, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, April 25, 1989

Advocates

P. Cameron DeVore (on behalf of the Appellee)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Schmuck v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-6431

Petitioner

Schmuck

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 705 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, November 30, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, March 22, 1989

Advocates

Brian J. Martin (on behalf of the Respondent)

Peter L. Steinberg (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: 18 U.S.C. 1341

None

Frazee v. Illinois Employment Security Dept.

Wed, 01 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1945

Appellee

Illinois Employment Security Dept.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Frazee

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 829 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, March 1, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, March 29, 1989

Advocates

Robert J. Ruiz (on behalf of the Appellee)

David A. French (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Frazee, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Free Exercise of Religion

None

Mississippi Choctaw Indian Band v. Holyfield

Wed, 11 Jan 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-980

Petitioner

Mississippi Choctaw Indian Band

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Holyfield

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 30 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1989

Decided

Monday, April 3, 1989

Advocates

Edward A. Miller (on behalf of the Appellees)

Edwin R. Smith (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mississippi Choctaw Indian Band, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 25 U.S.C. 1911

None

Public Citizen v. Department Of Justice

Mon, 17 Apr 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-429

Appellee

Department Of Justice

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Public Citizen

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 88-494

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 440 (1989)

Argued

Monday, April 17, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, June 21, 1989

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Department Of Justice, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 1

None

H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.

Tue, 08 Nov 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1252

Petitioner

H. J. Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

492 U.S. 229 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, November 8, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1989

Advocates

Mark Reinhardt (on behalf of the Petitioners)

John D. French (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for H. J. Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

None

Gomez v. United States

Mon, 24 Apr 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-5014

Petitioner

Gomez

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 88-5158

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 858 (1989)

Argued

Monday, April 24, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1989

Advocates

Michael K. Kellogg (on behalf of the Respondent)

Joel B. Rudin (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Gomez, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 636

None

United States v. Sokolow

Tue, 10 Jan 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Honolulu International Airport

300 Rodgers Boulevard Honolulu HI 96819

Honolulu, HI 96819

United States

21° 19' 57.1404" N, 157° 55' 7.5072" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1295

Appellee

Sokolow

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 1 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, January 10, 1989

Decided

Monday, April 3, 1989

Advocates

Robert P. Goldberg (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Paul J. Larkin, Jr. (Argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

Drug Enforcement Administration agents stopped Sokolow in Honolulu International Airport after his behavior indicated he may be a drug trafficker: he paid $2,100 in cash for airline tickets, he was not traveling under his own name, his original destination was Miami, he appeared nervous during the trip, and he checked none of his luggage. Agents arrested Sokolow and searched his luggage without a warrant. Later, at the DEA office, agents obtained warrants allowing more extensive searches and they discovered 1,063 grams of cocaine.

Question

Did the search violate the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

The Court upheld the search and reasoned that the agents had a "reasonable suspicion that respondent was engaged in wrongdoing." Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that the validity of such a stop should be based on the "totality of the circumstances," (United States v. Cortez, 1981), which, in this case, gave agents a clear reason to suspect Sokolow of drug trafficking.

Penson v. Ohio

Wed, 12 Oct 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-6116

Petitioner

Penson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ohio

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 75 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, October 12, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, November 29, 1988

Advocates

Mark B. Robinette (on behalf of the Respondent)

Gregory L. Ayers (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Penson, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Texas v. Johnson

Tue, 21 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Dallas City Hall

1500 Marilla Street Dallas TX 75201

Dallas, TX 75201

United States

32° 46' 35.526" N, 96° 47' 51.0036" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-155

Petitioner

Texas

Respondent

Johnson

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 397 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, March 21, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, June 21, 1989

Advocates

Kathi Alyce Drew (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

William M. Kunstler (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. He was sentenced to one year in jail and assessed a $2,000 fine. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court.

Question

Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?

Conclusion

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

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression under the First Amendment. The Court found that Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature. The fact that an audience takes offense to certain ideas or expression, the Court found, does not justify prohibitions of speech. The Court also held that state officials did not have the authority to designate symbols to be used to communicate only limited sets of messages, noting that "[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

Owens v. Okure

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-56

Petitioner

Owens

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Okure

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 235 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, November 1, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, January 10, 1989

Advocates

Kenneth Kimerling (on behalf of the Respondent)

Peter H. Schiff (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal

Tue, 18 Apr 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-556

Petitioner

Browning-Ferris Industries

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kelco Disposal

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

492 U.S. 257 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, April 18, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1989

Advocates

H. Bartow Farr, III (on behalf of Respondents)

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Kelco Disposal, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Prohibition of Excessive Fines

None

Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States

Tue, 21 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1729

Petitioner

Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 617 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, March 21, 1989

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1989

Advocates

William C. Bryson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Peter Van N. Lockwood (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: 21 U.S.C. 853

None

Davis v. Michigan Department of the Treasury

Mon, 09 Jan 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Michigan Dept. of Treasury

430 W Allegan St Lansing MI 48922

Lansing, MI 48922

United States

42° 43' 57.666" N, 84° 33' 26.8884" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1020

Appellant

Paul Davis

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Michigan Department of the Treasury

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 803 (1989)

Argued

Monday, January 9, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, March 28, 1989

Advocates

Paul S. Davis (argued the cause for the appellant, appearing pro se)

Michael K. Kellogg (argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Thomas L. Casey (argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Paul Davis, a resident of Michigan, worked for the federal government and upon retirement received benefits. Michigan law exempts state retirement benefits from state taxes. Smith unsuccessfully petitioned for a refund on the state taxes he paid on his federal retirement benefits. He then filed suit in the Michigan Court of Claims arguing that the state's tax policy violated 4 U.S.C. 111 by taxing benefits paid to federal employees but not to state employees. The court dismissed his suit and so did the Michigan Court of Appeals.

Question

Did Michigan violate federal law when it exempted state and local government pensions from taxation but levied taxes on federal government pensions?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Davis, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 4 U.S.C. 111

Yes. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion for an 8-1 court. The Court emphasized the principles of intergovernmental tax immunity, which work to keep one part of the government from hindering the operations of another part. Section 111 allows a state to tax income paid by the federal government "if the taxation does not discriminate against the officer or employee because of the source of the pay or compensation." Because the Court found no "significant differences between the two classes [federal and state employees]," it held that the Michigan tax distinguished between employees solely on "the source of the pay."

Hardin v. Straub

Wed, 22 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-7023

Petitioner

Hardin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Straub

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 536 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, March 22, 1989

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1989

Advocates

Louis J. Caruso (on behalf of the Respondent)

Douglas Ryan Mullkoff (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Dugger v. Adams

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-121

Petitioner

Dugger

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Adams

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 401 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, November 1, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, February 28, 1989

Advocates

Margene A. Roper (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Ronald J. Tabak (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Twa, Inc. v. Flight Attendants

Mon, 07 Nov 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-548

Petitioner

Twa, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Flight Attendants

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 426 (1989)

Argued

Monday, November 7, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, February 28, 1989

Advocates

Lawrence S. Robbins (as amicus curiae supporting Petitioner)

John P. Hurley (on behalf of the Respondent)

Murray Gartner (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Twa, Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Railway Labor

None

United States v. Stuart

Mon, 05 Dec 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1064

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stuart

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 353 (1989)

Argued

Monday, December 5, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, February 28, 1989

Advocates

Charles E. Peery (on behalf of the Respondents)

Lawrence G. Wallace (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: Treaty

None

American Foreign Service Assn. v. Garfinkel

Mon, 20 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-2127

Appellee

Garfinkel

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

American Foreign Service Assn.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 153 (1989)

Argued

Monday, March 20, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, April 18, 1989

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Respondents)

Patti Goldman (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser

Mon, 17 Apr 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-23

Petitioner

Lauro Lines S.R.L.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chasser

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 495 (1989)

Argued

Monday, April 17, 1989

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1989

Advocates

Raymond A. Connell (on behalf of Petitioner)

Arnold I. Burns (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

The Florida Star v. B. J. F.

Tue, 21 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-329

Appellee

B. J. F.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

The Florida Star

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 524 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, March 21, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, June 21, 1989

Advocates

Joel D. Eaton (on behalf of Respondent)

George K. Rahdert (on behalf of the Appellant,)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Castille v. Peoples

Tue, 06 Dec 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1602

Petitioner

Castille

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Peoples

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 346 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, February 22, 1989

Advocates

Gaele M. Barthold (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Robert E. Welsh, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Castille, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Missouri v. Jenkins

Tue, 21 Feb 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Kansas City Missouri School District

1211 McGee St Kansas City MO 64106

Kansas City, MO 64106

United States

39° 5' 59.1144" N, 94° 34' 46.9344" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-64

Petitioner

Missouri

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kalima Jenkins et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 274 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, February 21, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1989

Advocates

Bruce Farmer (Assistant Attorney General of Missouri, argued the cause for the petitioners)

Jay Topkis (argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

The Kansas City Missouri School District hired lawyers to argue a major desegregation case against the state of Missouri in federal district court. When the lawyers won the case after years of litigation, they sought compensation from Missouri under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976. The district court calculated the amount owed using current market rates for attorney's fees. Missouri objected to paying the lawyers at current rates for work they performed in the past when rates were lower. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled against Missouri. Missouri alleged that the federal courts violated its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity privileges by forcing it to pay higher rates.

Question

Under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, does the Eleventh Amendment prohibit a federal court from requiring a state to pay lawyers at current market rates for past litigation? Can legal assistants be charged at current market rates rather than at their cost to the lawyers at the time of litigation?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Jenkins, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

No and Yes. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. delivered the opinion for a 7-1 court. The Court referred to its decision in Hutto v. Finney to establish that the Eleventh Amendment does not apply "to an award of attorney's fees against a State." Therefore "it follows that the same is true for the calculation of the amount of the fee." Charging current rates for lawyers compensated for the delay in payment to them. Further, charging current rates for legal assistants rather than their cost to attorneys during litigation took account of the entire service the lawyers provided. This constituted "a reasonable attorney's fee" under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976.

Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton

Mon, 20 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-10

Petitioner

Harte-Hanks Communications

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Connaughton

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 657 (1989)

Argued

Monday, March 20, 1989

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1989

Advocates

John A. Lloyd, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Lee Levine (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Sable Communications of California v. FCC

Wed, 19 Apr 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Sable Communications of California Los Angeles, CA

United States

34° 3' 8.0424" N, 118° 14' 37.266" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-515

Appellee

FCC

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Sable Communications of California

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 88-525

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

492 U.S. 115 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, April 19, 1989

Decided

Friday, June 23, 1989

Advocates

Richard G. Taranto (Argued the cause for appellees in No. 88-515 and for appellants in No. 88-525)

Laurence H. Tribe (Argued the cause for appellant in No. 88-515 and for appellee in No. 88-525)

Facts of the Case

In 1988, Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 to ban indecent and obscene interstate commercial phone messages. Sable Communications had been in the dial-a-porn business since 1983. A judge in District Court upheld the ban on obscene messages, but enjoined the Act's enforcement against indecent ones.

Question

Did the amended Communications Act violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for FCC, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 47 U.S.C. 223

The Court upheld the District Court's ruling. Since the First Amendment does not protect obscene speech, as the Court found in Paris Adult Theater I v. Slaton (1973), the ban on obscene speech was legitimate. However, sexual expression that is simply indecent is protected. Thus, banning adult access to indecent messages "far exceeds that which is necessary" to shield minors from dial-a-porn services.

Barnard v. Thorstenn

Wed, 11 Jan 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1939

Petitioner

Barnard

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thorstenn

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 87-2008

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 546 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1989

Decided

Monday, March 6, 1989

Advocates

Cornish F. Hitchcock (on behalf of the Respondents)

Maria Tankenson Hodge (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Thorstenn, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Privileges and Immunities Clause

None

Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1201

Petitioner

Osterneck

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ernst & Whinney

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 169 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, November 29, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, February 21, 1989

Advocates

Laurie Webb Daniel (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Gordon Lee Garrett (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Commissioner v. Clark

Mon, 07 Nov 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1168

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Clark

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 726 (1989)

Argued

Monday, November 7, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, March 22, 1989

Advocates

Walter B. Slocombe (on behalf of the Respondent)

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Finley v. United States

Tue, 28 Feb 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1973

Petitioner

Finley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 545 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, February 28, 1989

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1989

Advocates

Joseph T. Cook (on behalf of Petitioner)

David L. Shapiro (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

DeShaney v. Winnebago County

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

Location

DeShaney Residence Neenah, WI

United States

44° 11' 8.9484" N, 88° 27' 45.3924" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-154

Petitioner

DeShaney

Respondent

Winnebago County

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 189 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, November 2, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, February 22, 1989

Advocates

Donald J. Sullivan (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Mark J. Mingo (Argued the cause for the respondents)

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

Facts of the Case

In 1984, four-year-old Joshua DeShaney became comatose and then profoundly retarded due to traumatic head injuries inflicted by his father who physically beat him over a long period of time. The Winnebago County Department of Social Services took various steps to protect the child after receiving numerous complaints of the abuse; however, the Department did not act to remove Joshua from his father's custody. Joshua DeShaney's mother subsequently sued the Winnebago County Department of Social Services, alleging that the Department had deprived the child of his "liberty interest in bodily integrity, in violation of his rights under the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, by failing to intervene to protect him against his father's violence."

Question

Does a state's failure to protect an individual against private violence constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

No. The Due Process Clause does not impose a special duty on the State to provide services to the public for protection against private actors if the State did not create those harms. "The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means."

Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assoc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1555

Petitioner

Skinner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Railway Labor Executives' Assoc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 602 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, November 2, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, March 21, 1989

Advocates

Lawrence M. Mann (on behalf of the Respondents)

Dick Thornburgh (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Recognizing the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse by railroad employees, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) implemented regulations requiring mandatory blood and urine tests of employees involved in certain train accidents. Other FRA rules allowed railroads to administer breath and urine tests to employees who violate certain safety rules.

Question

Did the regulations violate the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

No. The Court held that the government's interest in assuring safety on the nation's railroads constituted a "special need" which justified a departure from standard warrant and probable-cause requirements in searches. Preventing accidents, the goal of most railroad regulations including the one in this case, argued Justice Kennedy, was such a significant concern that it warranted reduced "expectations of privacy" for railroad employees.

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1054

Petitioner

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bruch

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 101 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, November 30, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, February 21, 1989

Advocates

David Silberman (on behalf of the Respondents)

Christopher J. Wright (as Amicus Curiae supporting Respondents)

Martin Wald (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bruch, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Community For Creative Non-Violence v. Reid

Wed, 29 Mar 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-293

Petitioner

Community For Creative Non-Violence

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reid

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 730 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, March 29, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 5, 1989

Advocates

Joshua Kaufman (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Lawrence S. Robbins (Argued the cause for the Register of Copyrights as amicus curiae urging affirmance)

Robert Alan Garrett (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

The Community for Creative Non-Violence (CCNV) made an oral agreement with James Reid, a sculptor, to produce a statue depicting the plight of the homeless for display at a 1985 Washington D.C. Christmas pageant. Upon completion, delivery, and joining of the work to a base that it prepared separately, CCNV paid Reid the final installment of the agreed-upon price. Shortly thereafter, the parties filed competing copyright claims over the sculpture. Holding, in accordance with the Copyright Act of 1976 (the "Act"), that the statue was a "work made for hire," a district court ruled in favor of CCNV. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and the Supreme Court granted CCNV certiorari.

Question

Is the making of a sculpture for an organization, by someone who contracts with the organization but is not its employee, a "work made for hire" as defined by the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. Section 101?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Reid, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 17 U.S.C. 101

No. In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that the statue's preparation was not a "work for hire" as defined by the Act because Reid was not a CCNV employee. Instead, CCNV hired Reid as an independent contractor. Reid's independent status was evident because he supplied his own tools, worked in his own studio in another city, was retained for less than two months, decided his own work schedule, received salary that was contingent on the sculpture's completion, and had sole discretion over hiring and paying assistants. Moreover, CCNV did not pay social security taxes for Reid nor did it provide him any employee benefits.

Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.

Mon, 05 Dec 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1346

Petitioner

Bonito Boats, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 141 (1989)

Argued

Monday, December 5, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, February 21, 1989

Advocates

Tomas Morgan Russell (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Charles E. Lipsey (Amicus Curiae in support of Judgment Below)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Shell Oil Co. v. Iowa Dept. Of Revenue

Tue, 04 Oct 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-984

Appellee

Iowa Dept. Of Revenue

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Shell Oil Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 19 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, October 4, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, November 8, 1988

Advocates

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

Harry M. Griger (on behalf of the Appellee)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, in support of Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Iowa Dept. Of Revenue, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 43 U.S.C. 1331

None

Harris v. Reed

Wed, 12 Oct 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-5677

Petitioner

Harris

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reed

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 255 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, October 12, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, February 22, 1989

Advocates

Robert V. Shuff, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Kimball R. Anderson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Harris, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Wyoming v. United States

Tue, 25 Apr 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-309

Petitioner

Wyoming

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

492 U.S. 406 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, April 25, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1989

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of Respondents)

Michael Douglas White (on behalf of Petitioner)

Susan M. Williams (on behalf of Tribal Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Zant v. Moore

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1104

Petitioner

Zant

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Moore

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 836 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, November 29, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, March 29, 1989

Advocates

Susan V. Boleyn (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John Charles Boger (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana

Mon, 03 Oct 1988 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-470

Petitioner

Fort Wayne Books, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Indiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 87-614

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 46 (1989)

Argued

Monday, October 3, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, February 21, 1989

Advocates

Stephen Goldsmith (on behalf of the Respondents)

John H. Weston (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None