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

Fri, 18 May 2012 16:39:12 +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