Cases - 1991 term

Wisconsin Department Of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co.

Wed, 22 Jan 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-119

Petitioner

Wisconsin Department Of Revenue

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

William Wrigley, Jr., Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 214 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, January 22, 1992

Decided

Friday, June 19, 1992

Advocates

F. Thomas Creeron, III (on behalf of the Petitioner)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Wisconsin Department Of Revenue, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 381

None

Williams v. United States

Wed, 06 Nov 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-6297

Petitioner

Williams

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 193 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, November 6, 1991

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1992

Advocates

Kenneth H. Hanson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Amy L. Wax (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Williams, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 3551

None

United States v. Salerno

Mon, 20 Apr 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-872

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Salerno et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 317 (1992)

Argued

Monday, April 20, 1992

Decided

Friday, June 19, 1992

Advocates

Michael E. Tigar (on behalf of the Respondent)

James A. Feldman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Evidence

None

Estelle, Warden v. Mcguire

Wed, 09 Oct 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1074

Petitioner

Estelle, Warden

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mcguire

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 62 (1991)

Argued

Wednesday, October 9, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, December 4, 1991

Advocates

Ann Hardgrove Voris (on behalf of the Respondent)

Dane R. Gillette (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Estelle, Warden, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Kraft General Foods, Inc. v. Iowa Department Of Revenue And Finance

Wed, 22 Apr 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1918

Petitioner

Kraft General Foods, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Iowa Department Of Revenue And Finance

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 71 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, April 22, 1992

Decided

Thursday, June 18, 1992

Advocates

Marcia Mason (on behalf of the Respondent)

Kent L. Jones (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae supporting Respondent)

Jerome B. Libin (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Kraft General Foods, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Wooddell v. International Brotherhood Of Electrical Workers, Local 71

Wed, 16 Oct 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-967

Petitioner

Wooddell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

International Brotherhood Of Electrical Workers, Local 71, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 93 (1991)

Argued

Wednesday, October 16, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, December 4, 1991

Advocates

Frederick G. Cloppert (on behalf of the Respondents)

Theodore E. Meckler (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Wooddell, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure

None

Mccarthy v. Madigan

Mon, 09 Dec 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-6861

Petitioner

Mccarthy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Madigan et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 140 (1992)

Argued

Monday, December 9, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, March 4, 1992

Advocates

Maureen E. Mahoney (on behalf of the Respondents)

Paul M. Smith (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Fordice

Wed, 13 Nov 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Mississippi Governor's Office

400 High Street Jacksonville MS 39201

Jacksonville, MS 39201

United States

32° 18' 18.2556" N, 90° 10' 58.926" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1205

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fordice

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 90-6588

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 717 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, November 13, 1991

Decided

Friday, June 26, 1992

Advocates

Alvin O. Chambliss, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioner Ayers)

Kenneth W. Starr (Argued the cause for the United States)

William F. Goodman, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondents in both cases)

Facts of the Case

After 17 years of litigation, Mississippi's public university system remained racially divided. The state had operated legally segregated universities, but had since adopted race-neutral policies to dismantle its de jure segregated system. All students could choose which school to attend, though the choices produced nearly all white and all black institutions of higher learning. This case was decided together with that of Ayers v. Fordice.

Question

Has Mississippi met its affirmative duty under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause to dismantle its prior dual university system?

Conclusion

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

No. A state's duty is not discharged "until it eradicates policies and practices traceable to its prior de jure dual system that continues to foster segregation." Race-neutral admissions are not a sufficient corrective to constitutional violations of a dual system. Different admissions criteria, and different missions for university system components, may have racially discriminatory effects perpetuating the old system. The Court did not declare the present system unconstitutional, only that Mississippi had not done enough to eliminate segregation. The Justices turned the matter back to state officials -- and to the courts -- to determine what must be done to fulfill its duty under the Constitution.

Cipollone v. Liggett Group

Tue, 08 Oct 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Residence of Rose Cipollone Little Ferry, NJ

United States

40° 51' 10.3608" N, 74° 2' 31.506" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1038

Petitioner

Cipollone

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Liggett Group

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 504 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, October 8, 1991

Reargued:

Monday, January 13, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, June 24, 1992

Advocates

Marc Z. Edell (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Laurence H. Tribe (Reargued the cause for the petitioner)

H. Bartow Farr, III (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Rose Cipollone died at 58 from lung cancer. She smoked for 42 years. Before her death, she and her husband sued several cigarette manufacturers in federal court for damages resulting from Mrs. Cipollone lung cancer. A trial court judgment of $400,000 was reserved in the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Cipollone family appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Question

Do federally mandated cigarette warnings pre-empt the Cipollones' common law claims against cigarette manufacturers?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Cipollone, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 1331

In a complicated 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that federally mandated warnings do not bar smokers from suing manufacturers under state personal- injury laws. The justices ruled that such suits cannot be based on claims that cigarette advertising failed to warn smokers of smoking dangers. But the justices also ruled that individuals may press claims alleging that the tobacco companies made fraudulent or inaccurate statements in their advertising or that the companies conspired to mislead people about the health hazards of smoking.

Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Ford

Mon, 20 Apr 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-779

Petitioner

Burlington Northern Railroad Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ford et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 648 (1992)

Argued

Monday, April 20, 1992

Decided

Friday, June 12, 1992

Advocates

Betty Jo Christian (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Joel I. Klein (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Southwest Marine, Inc. v Gizoni

Tue, 15 Oct 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-584

Petitioner

Southwest Marine, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gizoni

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 81 (1991)

Argued

Tuesday, October 15, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, December 4, 1991

Advocates

Preston Easley (on behalf of the Respondent)

George J. Tichy, II (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Robert A. Long, Jr. (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Gizoni, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation

None

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.

Tue, 10 Dec 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1029

Petitioner

Eastman Kodak Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Image Technical Services, Inc., et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 451 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, December 10, 1991

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1992

Advocates

James F. Rill (as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Donn P. Pickett (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James A. Hennefer (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Image Technical Services, Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Immigration And Naturalization Service v. Doherty

Wed, 16 Oct 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-925

Petitioner

Immigration And Naturalization Service

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Doherty

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 314 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, October 16, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, January 15, 1992

Advocates

Maureen E. Mahoney (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Mary Boresz Pike (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Immigration And Naturalization Service, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Taylor v. Freeland & Kranz

Mon, 02 Mar 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-571

Petitioner

Taylor

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Freeland & Kranz et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 638 (1992)

Argued

Monday, March 2, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, April 21, 1992

Advocates

Phillip S. Simon (on behalf of the Respondents)

Timothy B. Dyk (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Freeland & Kranz, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Medina v. California

Tue, 25 Feb 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-8370

Petitioner

Medina

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 437 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, February 25, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1992

Advocates

Michael Pescetta (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Holly D. Wilkens (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for California, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Morales, Attorney General Of Texas v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.

Tue, 03 Mar 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1604

Petitioner

Morales, Attorney General Of Texas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Trans World Airlines, Inc., et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 374 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, March 3, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1992

Advocates

Stephen L. Nightingale (as amicus curiae supporting the Respondents)

Keith A. Jones (on behalf of the Respondents)

Stephen Gardner (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Trans World Airlines, Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 49 U.S.C. 1305

None

Wade v. United States

Mon, 23 Mar 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-5771

Petitioner

Wade

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 181 (1992)

Argued

Monday, March 23, 1992

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1992

Advocates

J. Matthew Martin (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Robert A. Long, Jr. (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: 18 U.S.C. 3553

None

Suter v. Artist M.

Mon, 02 Dec 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1488

Petitioner

Suter

Respondent

Artist M.

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 347 (1992)

Argued

Monday, December 2, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, March 25, 1992

Advocates

Christina M. Tchen (Argued the case for the petitioners)

John G. Roberts, Jr. (Argued the case for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Michael G. Dsida (Argued the case for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (AACW) provides that, in order to be reimbursed for adoption and foster care services, a state must submit a plan for the administration of those services to the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services for approval. In order to be approved, the plan must be "in effect in all" a state's political subdivisions and "be mandatory upon them," and must state that "reasonable efforts will be made" to prevent removal of children from their homes and to facilitate reunification of families where removal has occurred. Several children in the Illinois foster care program brought suit against the Director and the Guardianship Administrator of the Illinois program under 42 U.S.C. 1983, which provides private individuals a right to sue for "deprivation of any rights ... secured by [federal] laws." They charged that Illinois had failed to make reasonable efforts to preserve and reunite families, and that it was required to do so by the AACW. The Director and Guardianship Administrator argued that the children had no standing to sue because the AACW did not create substantive rights that had to be reinforced, but merely stated what contents an administrative plan needed to have in order to receive approval. The federal District Court sided with the children, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question

Does the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 create a "right" for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1983, allowing children affected by a state's adoption program to bring a private suit against its administrators?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Suter, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

No. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 only required that a state have a plan for the administration of adoption and foster care programs in order to receive federal reimbursement, not that the plan be correctly carried out. The language of the statute requiring that the plan be "in effect in all" political subdivisions of the state meant only that the plan had to apply to all of them, not that they were actually required to carry it out. The Secretary of Health and Human Services could reasonably withhold approval of a plan if it was clear that the plan would not be applied, but nothing in the Act suggested that Congress had intended to create a private right to sue for the enforcement of the plan.

Stringer v. Black, Commissioner, Mississippi Department Of Corrections

Mon, 09 Dec 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-6616

Petitioner

Stringer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Black, Commissioner, Mississippi Department Of Corrections, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 222 (1992)

Argued

Monday, December 9, 1991

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1992

Advocates

Kenneth J. Rose (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Marvin L. White, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Stringer, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Gomez v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Sun, 20 May 2012 19:57:25 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

A-767

Petitioner

Gomez

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 653 (1992)

Decided

Tuesday, April 21, 1992

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Gomez, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Burdick v. Takushi, Director Of Elections Of Hawaii

Tue, 24 Mar 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-535

Petitioner

Burdick

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Takushi, Director Of Elections Of Hawaii, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 428 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, March 24, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1992

Advocates

Arthur N. Eisenberg (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Steven S. Michaels (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Takushi, Director Of Elections Of Hawaii, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

None

Presley v. Etowah County Commission

Tue, 12 Nov 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Etowah County Commission

800 Gadsden AL 35901

Gadsden, AL 35901

United States

34° 0' 56.3076" N, 86° 0' 41.3532" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-711

Appellant

Lawrence C. Presley et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Etowah County Commission et al.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Consolidation

No. 90-712, Mack et al. v. Russell County Commission et al.

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 491 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, November 12, 1991

Decided

Monday, January 27, 1992

Advocates

Edward Still (on behalf of the Appellants)

Robert A. Long, Jr. (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Paul M. Smith (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

The principal focus of Alabama County Commission members is the construction and maintenance of roads. In 1987, Etowah County Commission passed the "Common Fund Resolution", combining all of the commission's funds into one county-wide budget and eliminating each commissioner's power over the distribution of funds allocated for his or her own road district. Newly elected black member, Commissioner Lawrence C. Presley, claimed that the changes in the distribution of authority were a form of racial discrimination and a violation of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which permits a state government to alter practices related to voting only after receiving judicial preclearance. The Etowah County Commission had not received this preclearance, and neither had the Russell County Commission when, in 1979, its members instituted the "Unit System." This system transferred full authority over Russell County roads, highways, bridges, and ferries from the commissioners to the appointed county engineer. When the first 2 black commissioners were elected in Russell County, they joined Presley in filing a suit against Etowah and Russell Counties in the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The District Court determined that preclearance was unnecessary in both 2 instances, but Presley appealed.

Question

Did the alterations imposed by the Etowah County Commission and the Russell County Commission regarding the scope of commissioner authority constitute changes "with respect to voting" according to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Etowah County Commission, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

No. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court determined that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act covers only changes that directly relate to voting. More specifically, the Court found that case law outlines 4 areas in which alterations require preclearance under section 5: the method of voting, the requirements for candidacy, the composition of the electorate, and the formation or elimination of an elected office. In the Court's opinion, neither the "Common Fund Resolution" nor the "Unit System" fell in any of the 4 categories. Instead, those 2 changes merely concern the "internal operation of an elected body". Thus, the judgment of the District Court was affirmed.

Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, By And Through Its Tax Commissioner, Heitkamp

Wed, 22 Jan 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Location

North Dakota State Tax Commissioner

600 E Boulevard Ave Bismarck ND 58505

Bismarck, ND 58505

United States

46° 49' 0.4008" N, 100° 46' 58.1484" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-194

Petitioner

Quill Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

North Dakota, By And Through Its Tax Commissioner, Heitkamp

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 298 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, January 22, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, May 26, 1992

Advocates

John E. Gaggini (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Nicholas Spaeth (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

Through its Tax Commissioner, the state of North Dakota filed an action in state court to force the Quill Corporation, an out-of-state mail-order office equipment retailer, to charge a North Dakota use tax on Quill merchandise to be used within the state. The state court ruled in favor of Quill, grounding its decision on Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, 386 U.S. 753 _. In this 1967 case, the United States Supreme court found a similar Illinois statute to be in violation of both the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, basing its decision on a rejection of _Bellas Hess in light of the "tremendous social, economic, commercial, and legal innovations" since it had been decided.

Question

1) Had Bellas Hess become obsolete? 2) Was North Dakota's imposition of a use tax upon the merchandise of the Quill Corporation in compliance with the Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Quill Corp., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

No and No. In a majority opinion authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court admitted that, over time, subsequent cases have allowed for more flexibility than Bellas Hess. Nevertheless, the Court maintained that this evolution does not suggest a rejection of Bellas Hess. The Court also determined that North Dakota's imposition of the use tax did not constitute a breach of the Due Process Clause because the Quill Corporation had sufficient contact with the state's residents and benefited from the state's tax revenue. However, it found the use tax to be unconstitutional because it interfered with interstate commerce, rendering it a violation of the Commerce Clause. Consequently, the Court reversed the North Dakota Supreme Court's decision by ruling in favor of the Quill Corporation.

Lucas v. South Carolina Coast Council

Mon, 02 Mar 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Charleston County Court of Common Pleas

2144 Melbourne Avenue North Charleston SC 29418

North Charleston, SC 29418

United States

32° 52' 1.7292" N, 79° 59' 33.8748" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-453

Petitioner

Lucas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

South Carolina Coast Council

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 1003 (1992)

Argued

Monday, March 2, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 29, 1992

Advocates

C. C. Harness, III (on behalf of the Respondent)

A. Camden Lewis (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

In 1986, Lucas bought two residential lots on the Isle of Palms, a South Carolina barrier island. He intended to build single-family homes as on the adjacent lots. In 1988, the state legislature enacted a law which barred Lucas from erecting permanent habitable structures on his land. The law aimed to protect erosion and destruction of barrier islands. Lucas sued and won a large monetary judgment. The state appealed.

Question

Does the construction ban depriving Lucas of all economically viable use of his property amount to a "taking" calling for "just compensation" under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Lucas, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

Yes. In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court relied on the trial court's finding that Lucas's lots had been rendered valueless by the state law. "[W]hen the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good...he has suffered a taking."

Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc.

Wed, 01 Apr 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-763

Petitioner

Republic of Argentina

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Weltover, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 607 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, April 1, 1992

Decided

Friday, June 12, 1992

Advocates

Richard W. Cutler (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Jeffrey P. Minear (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae supporting respondents)

Richard J. Davis (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

In 1981, Argentina instituted a foreign exchange insurance contract program (FEIC), under which it effectively assumed the risk of currency depreciation in cross-border transactions. When Argentina could not cover the FEIC contracts, it issued "Bonods," which provided for repayment in U.S. dollars through transfer on the market in one of several locations. Subsequently, when Argentina concluded that it lacked sufficient foreign exchange to retire the Bonods, it unilaterally extended the time for payment and offered bondholders substitute instruments as a means of rescheduling the debts. Ultimately, two Panamanian corporations and a Swiss bank brought a breach-of-contract action in Federal District Court. The court denied Argentina's motion to dismiss. In affirming, the Court of Appeals ruled that the District Court had jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), which subjects foreign states to suit in American courts for acts taken "in connection with a commercial activity" that have "a direct effect in the United States."

Question

Was the Republic of Argentina's default on certain bonds an act taken "in connection with a commercial activity" that had a "direct effect in the United States" so as to subject Argentina to suit in an American court under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Weltover, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1602

Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the District Court properly asserted jurisdiction under the FSIA. The Court reasoned that the issuance of the Bonods was a "commercial activity" and that the rescheduling of the maturity dates on those instruments was taken "in connection with" that activity because Argentina had acted as a private player within a market and not as a regulator of that market. Moreover, the Court concluded that the unilateral rescheduling of the Bonods had a "direct effect in the United States" because Argentina had designated their accounts in New York as the place of payment and had made some interest payments into those accounts before announcing that it was rescheduling the payments.

Wyatt v. Cole

Tue, 14 Jan 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-126

Petitioner

Wyatt

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cole et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 158 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, January 14, 1992

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1992

Advocates

Joseph L. McNamara (on behalf of the Respondent)

Jim Waide (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Union Bank v. Walas, Chapter 7 Trustee For The Estate Of Zzzz Best Co., Inc.

Tue, 05 Nov 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1491

Petitioner

Union Bank

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Walas, Chapter 7 Trustee For The Estate Of Zzzz Best Co., Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 151 (1991)

Argued

Tuesday, November 5, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, December 11, 1991

Advocates

John A. Graham (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Herbert Wolas (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Union Bank, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Nordlinger v. Hahn

Tue, 25 Feb 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Residence of Stephanie Nordlinger

Baldwin Hills neighborhood Los Angeles CA

Los Angeles, CA

United States

34° 1' 9.4836" N, 118° 21' 59.9328" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1912

Petitioner

Nordlinger

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hahn

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 1 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, February 25, 1992

Decided

Thursday, June 18, 1992

Advocates

Carlyle W. Hall, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

In a statewide ballot, California residents approved the addition of Article XIIIA to their State Constitution. Article XIIIA's "acquisition value" provision limited property assessment value increases to two percent, if caused by changes in ownership or new construction improvements. Article XIIIA exempted two types of transfers from this reassessment limit: first, if the principal seller is 55 or older and moved to a home of equal or lower value, and second, when a transfer occurred between parents and children. One of Article XIIIA's effects is that over time the taxes of new property owners, adjusted to reflect recent values, would be substantially higher than long- term property owner's taxes. A new property owner filed suit to challenge the state constitutional amendment.

Question

Does Article XIIIA's "acquisition value provision," which created a dramatic disparity in the property taxes paid by long-term property owners as compared with new property owners, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against new property owners?

Conclusion

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

The Court, through Justice Blackmun, held that California's new property tax system rationally and plausibly furthered legitimate state interests in restraining increasing property taxes and preserving local neighborhood stability. The discrepancy which Article XIIIA created between new and long time property owners is warranted, because the latter had a far greater reliance interest in their property than the former. Thus, long-time property owners deserved more protection from higher property taxes than new property owners. This demonstrated a significant difference between the two property owner types. In addition, both of Article XIIIA's exemptions rationally promoted a legitimate state interest. The first exemption did not discourage older people from moving to a smaller home that is likely to better suit their smaller family and income. The second exemption aimed at preserving family unity and neighborhood stability. Accordingly, the Court held that Article XIIIA did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Wed, 22 Apr 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Pennsylvania State Capitol

North 3rd and State Streets Harrisburg PA 17101

Harrisburg, PA 17101

United States

40° 15' 50.4216" N, 76° 53' 5.8128" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-744

Petitioner

Planned Parenthood

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Casey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania et al., No. 91-902

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, April 22, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 29, 1992

Advocates

Kathryn Kolbert (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Ernest D. Preate, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Kenneth W. Starr (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

The Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989. Among the new provisions, the law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure). A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement.

Question

Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and, if minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade?

Conclusion

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

In a bitter, 5-to-4 decision, the Court again reaffirmed Roe, but it upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions. For the first time, the justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement. The opinion for the Court was unique: It was crafted and authored by three justices.

Int. Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee

Wed, 25 Mar 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Location

International Society for Krishna Consciousness

305 Schermerhorn Street Brooklyn NY 11217

Brooklyn, NY 11217

United States

40° 41' 15.3024" N, 73° 58' 55.6608" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-155

Petitioner

Int. Society for Krishna Consciousness

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 672 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, March 25, 1992

Decided

Friday, June 26, 1992

Advocates

Arthur P. Berg (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Barry A. Fisher (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

New York City's airport authority banned repetitive solicitation of money within airline terminals. Solicitation was permitted outside the terminals. The International Society for Krishna Consciousness solicits funds in public places. It challenged the regulation. A federal district court granted an injunction against the airport authority. The authority appealed.

Question

Does the regulation violate the First Amendment free speech clause?

Conclusion

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

No. An airport terminal is not a public forum. The regulation banning such activity need only satisfy a reasonableness standard. The regulation is reasonable. Solicitators may slow the path of possible contributors, cause duress or commit fraud. Therefore, the regulation is permissible. In a related case, the Court held invalid the airport authority's ban on literature distribution in airport terminals.

Hilton v. South Carolina Public Railways Commission

Tue, 08 Oct 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-848

Petitioner

Hilton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

South Carolina Public Railways Commission

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 197 (1991)

Argued

Tuesday, October 8, 1991

Decided

Sunday, December 15, 1991

Advocates

Robert J. Beckham (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Keating L. Simons, III (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Hilton, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Employers' Liability

None

United States v. Wilson

Wed, 15 Jan 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1745

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wilson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 329 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, January 15, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1992

Advocates

Henry A. Martin (on behalf of the Respondent)

Amy L. Wax (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 3585

None

Lechmere Inc. v. NLRB

Tue, 12 Nov 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-970

Petitioner

Lechmere Inc.

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 527 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, November 12, 1991

Decided

Monday, January 27, 1992

Advocates

Robert P. Joy (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Michael R. Dreeben (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Lechmere owned and operated a large retail store in a shopping plaza. Nonemployee union organizers campaigned to organize the store employees by entering the company's parking lot and placing handbills on car windshields. Lechmere prohibited solicitation and literature distribution on its property. The union organizers persisted in their leafleting campaign despite continued objections from Lechmere. The union filed an unfair labor practice charge against Lechmere. An NLRB judge ruled in the union's favor.

Question

May nonemployee union organizers trespass on private property to solicit union support?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Lechmere Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

No, reasoned Justice Clarence Thomas, except in situations where inaccessibility makes communication through normal channels ineffective. There were alternatives short of trespass, such as signs, mailings, and newspaper ads. (Thomas's defense of private property rights may offer a clue to his budding jurisprudence.)

Hudson v. McMillian

Wed, 13 Nov 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Angola Louisiana State Penitentiary

Highway 66 Angola LA

Angola, LA

United States

30° 57' 47.9952" N, 91° 35' 48.4584" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-6531

Petitioner

Hudson

Respondent

McMillian

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 1 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, November 13, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, February 25, 1992

Advocates

Alvin J. Bronstein (Argued the case for the petitioner)

John G. Roberts, Jr. (Argued the case for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal )

Harry McCall, Jr. (Argued the case for respondents)

Facts of the Case

Keith Hudson, a Louisiana inmate, claimed that he was beaten by Marvin Woods and Jack McMillian, two prison guards, while their supervisor, Arthur Mezo, watched. Hudson sued the guards in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, which allows individuals to bring suit for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution." Hudson argued that they had violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The District Court ruled that the guards had used force when there was no need to do so, violating the Eighth Amendment, and that Hudson was therefore entitled to damages. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, however, finding that an inmate must demonstrate "significant injury" when he claims that his Eighth Amendment rights have been violated by the use of excessive force.

Question

Must an inmate alleging that his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment has been violated by the excessive use of force demonstrate "significant injury" to prevail on his claim?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Hudson, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

No. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the degree of injury suffered by an inmate is one of several important factors in an Eighth Amendment claim of cruel and unusual punishment, but that the absence of "significant injury" alone does not mean his rights have not been violated. Instead, the Court should consider whether the punishment inflicted was malicious and sadistic. "When prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency are always violated," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the majority opinion. "This is true whether or not significant injury is evident. Otherwise, the Eighth Amendment would permit any physical punishment, no matter how diabolic or inhuman, inflicting less than some arbitrary quantity of injury. Such a result would have been as unacceptable to the drafters of the Eighth Amendment as it is today."

City Of Burlington v. Dague

Tue, 21 Apr 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-810

Petitioner

City Of Burlington

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dague et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 557 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, April 21, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, June 24, 1992

Advocates

Michael B. Clapp (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard H. Seamon (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioner)

Barry L. Goldstein (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for City Of Burlington, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water), plus amendments

None

Rufo, Sheriff Of Suffolk County v. Inmates Of Suffolk County Jail

Wed, 09 Oct 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-954

Petitioner

Rufo, Sheriff Of Suffolk County, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Inmates Of Suffolk County Jail et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 90-1004

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 367 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, October 9, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, January 15, 1992

Advocates

John T. Montgomery (on behalf of the Petitioner Thomas C. Rapone)

Max D. Stern (on behalf of the Respondents)

Chester A. Janiak (on behalf of the Petitioners Robert C. Rufo, et al)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Rufo, Sheriff Of Suffolk County, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Immigration And Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias

Mon, 04 Nov 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1342

Petitioner

Immigration And Naturalization Service

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Elias-Zacarias

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 478 (1992)

Argued

Monday, November 4, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, January 22, 1992

Advocates

Maureen E. Mahoney (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James Robertson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Immigration And Naturalization Service, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Riggins v. Nevada

Wed, 15 Jan 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-8466

Petitioner

Riggins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nevada

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 127 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, January 15, 1992

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1992

Advocates

James Tufteland (on behalf of the Respondent)

Mace J. Yampolsky (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Riggins, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Trial By Jury

None

Gade, Director, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency v. National Solid Wastes Management Association

Mon, 23 Mar 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1676

Petitioner

Gade, Director, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Solid Wastes Management Association

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 88 (1992)

Argued

Monday, March 23, 1992

Decided

Thursday, June 18, 1992

Advocates

Donald T. Bliss (on behalf of the Respondent)

William K. Kelley (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondent)

John W. Simon (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for National Solid Wastes Management Association, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Occupational Safety and Health

None

Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation

Wed, 13 Nov 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-727

Petitioner

Holmes

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Securities Investor Protection Corporation et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 258 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, November 13, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1992

Advocates

G. Robert Blakey (on behalf of the Respondents)

Jack I. Samet (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Holmes, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

None

United States Department Of Energy v. Ohio

Tue, 03 Dec 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1341

Petitioner

United States Department Of Energy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ohio et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 90-1517

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 607 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, December 3, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, April 21, 1992

Advocates

Jack A. Van Kley (on behalf of the Respondents/Cross-Petitioners)

James A. Feldman (on behalf of the Petitioners/Cross-Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States Department Of Energy, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water), plus amendments

None

Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, Trustee For The Estate Of O'sullivan's Fuel Oil Co., Inc.

Tue, 21 Jan 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1791

Petitioner

Connecticut National Bank

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Germain, Trustee For The Estate Of O'sullivan's Fuel Oil Co., Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 249 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, January 21, 1992

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1992

Advocates

Janet C. Hall (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Thomas M. Germain (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Connecticut National Bank, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1292

None

Molzof, Personal Representative Of The Estate Of Molzof v. United States

Mon, 04 Nov 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-838

Petitioner

Molzof, Personal Representative Of The Estate Of Molzof

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 301 (1992)

Argued

Monday, November 4, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, January 14, 1992

Advocates

Daniel A. Rottier (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Christopher J. Wright (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Molzof, Personal Representative Of The Estate Of Molzof, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Tort Claims, or Alien Tort Statute

None

American National Red Cross v. S.G. and A.E.

Tue, 03 Mar 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-594

Petitioner

American National Red Cross

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

S.G. and A.E.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 247 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, March 3, 1992

Decided

Friday, June 19, 1992

Advocates

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

Ronald J. Mann (Argued the cause for the Unites States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

J. Gilbert Upton (on behalf of the Respondents)

Gilbert Upton (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Plaintiffs filed two state-law tort actions in New Hampshire state courts, alleging that one of them had contracted AIDS from a transfusion of contaminated blood during surgery. The second action was brought against the Red Cross after plaintiffs discovered that it had supplied the tainted blood. Before the state court could decide a motion to consolidate the cases, the Red Cross invoked the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1441, to remove the second suit to federal court. The district court rejected the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court, holding that the Red Cross' charter provision allowing it to "sue and be sued in courts of law and equity, State or Federal, within the jurisdiction of the United States," 36 U.S.C. Section 2, conferred original jurisdiction on the federal district court.

Question

Does the "sue and be sued" provision in the Red Cross' charter confer original jurisdiction on federal courts over all cases to which the Red Cross is a party?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for American National Red Cross, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 36 U.S.C. 2

Yes. A congressional charter's "sue and be sued" provision confers federal- court jurisdiction if, but only if, it specifically mentions the federal courts. The Red Cross Charter provision does specifically mention the federal courts. This holding leaves the jurisdiction of the federal courts well within the Article III limits, because the Court has consistently held that Article III's "arising under" jurisdiction is broad enough to authorize Congress to confer federal-court jurisdiction over actions involving federally chartered corporations.

County Of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes And Bands Of The Yakima Indian Nation

Tue, 05 Nov 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-408

Petitioner

County Of Yakima et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Confederated Tribes And Bands Of The Yakima Indian Nation

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation v. County of Yakima et al., No. 90-577

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 251 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, November 5, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, January 14, 1992

Advocates

Robert Wayne Bjur (on behalf of the Respondent/Cross-Petitioner)

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondent/Cross-Petitioner)

Jeffrey C. Sullivan (on behalf of the Petitioners/Cross-Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Confederated Tribes And Bands Of The Yakima Indian Nation, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 25 U.S.C. 331

None

United States Department Of State v. Ray

Wed, 09 Oct 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-747

Petitioner

United States Department Of State

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ray et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 164 (1991)

Argued

Wednesday, October 9, 1991

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1991

Advocates

Michael Dean Ray (on behalf of the Respondents)

Kent L. Jones (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States Department Of State, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Wright, Warden v. West

Tue, 24 Mar 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-542

Petitioner

Wright, Warden, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

West

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 277 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, March 24, 1992

Decided

Friday, June 19, 1992

Advocates

Donald R. Curry (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Maureen E. Mahoney (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioners)

Steven H. Goldblatt (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Holywell Corp. v. Smith

Wed, 04 Dec 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1361

Petitioner

Holywell Corp. et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Smith et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 90-1484

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 47 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, December 4, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, February 25, 1992

Advocates

Herbert Stettin (on behalf of the Respondents)

Kent L. Jones (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Holywell Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Dewsnup v. Timm

Tue, 15 Oct 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-741

Petitioner

Dewsnup

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Timm et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 410 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, October 15, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, January 15, 1992

Advocates

Ronald J. Mann (as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondents)

Richard G. Taranto (on behalf of the Respondents)

Timothy B. Dyk (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Timm, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Smith v. Barry

Mon, 02 Dec 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-7477

Petitioner

Smith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Barry et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 244 (1992)

Argued

Monday, December 2, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, January 14, 1992

Advocates

David H. Bamberger (on behalf of the Respondents)

Steven H. Goldblatt (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None