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, 28 Apr 2013 11:48:07 +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

Collins v. City Of Harker Heights, Texas

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1279

Petitioner

Collins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

City Of Harker Heights, Texas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 115 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, November 5, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, February 26, 1992

Advocates

Sanford Jay Rosen (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lucas A. Powe, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for City Of Harker Heights, Texas, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Denton, Director Of Corrections Of California v. Hernandez

Mon, 24 Feb 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1846

Petitioner

Denton, Director Of Corrections Of California, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hernandez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 25 (1992)

Argued

Monday, February 24, 1992

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1992

Advocates

James Ching (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Richard W. Nichols (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Denton, Director Of Corrections Of California, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1915

None

Estate Of Cowart v. Nicklas Drilling Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-17

Petitioner

Estate Of Cowart

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nicklas Drilling Co. et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 469 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, March 25, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1992

Advocates

Lloyd N. Frischhertz (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Michael R. Dreeben (on behalf of the Federal Respondent)

H. Lee Lewis, Jr. (on behalf of the private Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Nicklas Drilling Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation

None

United States v. Williams

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1972

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Williams

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 36 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, January 22, 1992

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1992

Advocates

Kenneth W. Starr (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James C. Lang (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:

None

New York v. United States

Mon, 30 Mar 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Northern District Court of New York

445 Broadway Albany NY 12207

Albany, NY 12207

United States

42° 38' 58.3692" N, 73° 45' 0.5508" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-543

Petitioner

New York

Respondent

United States

Consolidation

No. 91-558

No. 91-563

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 144 (1992)

Argued

Monday, March 30, 1992

Decided

Friday, June 19, 1992

Advocates

William B. Collins (Argued the cause for the state respondents)

Peter H. Schiff (Argued the cause for the petitioners in all cases)

Lawrence G. Wallace (Argued the cause for the federal respondents in all cases)

Facts of the Case

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Act Amendments of 1985 required states alone or in compacts with other states to dispose of such radioactive waste within their borders. New York State and Allegany and Courtland counties were frustrated in their compliance efforts by resistance from residents to proposed radioactive waste sites and a lack of cooperation from neighboring states. New York filed suit against the federal government, questioning the authority of Congress to regulate state waste management.

Question

Does the Low-Level Waste Act violate the Tenth Amendment and the "guarantee clause" of Article Four?

Conclusion

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

In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld two of the three provisions of the Act under review, reasoning that Congress had the authority under the Commerce Clause to use financial rewards and access to disposal sites as incentives for state waste management. The third provision, the "take-title" qualification, stipulated that states must take legal ownership and liability for low-level waste or by the regulatory act. "Either type of federal action," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, "would 'commandeer' state governments into the service of federal regulatory purposes, and would for this reason be inconsistent with the Constitution's division of authority between federal and state governments." This last provision violated the Tenth Amendment.

R.A.V. v. St. Paul

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

Location

Burning Cross at residence

290 Earl Street Minneapolis MN 55427

Minneapolis, MN 55427

United States

45° 0' 0.6588" N, 93° 23' 53.1276" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-7675

Petitioner

R.A.V.

Respondent

St. Paul

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 377 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, December 4, 1991

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1992

Advocates

Edward J. Cleary (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Tom Foley (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Several teenagers allegedly burned a crudely fashioned cross on a black family's lawn. The police charged one of the teens under a local bias- motivated criminal ordinance which prohibits the display of a symbol which "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." The trial court dismissed this charge. The state supreme court reversed. R.A.V. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Question

Is the ordinance overly broad and impermissibly content-based in violation of the First Amendment free speech clause?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In a 9-to-0 vote, the justices held the ordinance invalid on its face because "it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses." The First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed. Under the ordinance, for example, one could hold up a sign declaring all anti-semites are bastards but not that all Jews are bastards. Government has no authority "to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow the Marquis of Queensbury Rules."

Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt, Governor Of Alabama

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-471

Petitioner

Chemical Waste Management, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hunt, Governor Of Alabama, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 334 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, April 21, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1992

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioner)

Bert S. Nettles (on behalf of the Respondents)

Andrew J. Pincus (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Chemical Waste Management, Inc., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Immigration And Naturalization Service v. National Center For Immigrants' Rights, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1090

Petitioner

Immigration And Naturalization Service et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Center For Immigrants' Rights, Inc., et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 183 (1991)

Argued

Wednesday, November 13, 1991

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1991

Advocates

Stephen J. Marzen (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Peter A. Schey (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Immigration And Naturalization Service, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

United States v. Burke

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-42

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Burke et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 229 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, January 21, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, May 26, 1992

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Joseph E. Finley (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Arkansas v. Oklahoma

Wed, 11 Dec 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1262

Petitioner

Arkansas et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oklahoma et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 90-1266

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 91 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, December 11, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, February 26, 1992

Advocates

Robert A. Butkin (on behalf of the Respondent)

Edward W. Warren (on behalf of the Petitioners Arkansas, et al)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Petitioner EPA)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Arkansas, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water), plus amendments

None

United States v. Felix

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1599

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Felix

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 378 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, January 14, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, March 25, 1992

Advocates

William C. Bryson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Scott M. Anderson (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: Double Jeopardy

None

Federal Trade Commission v. Ticor Title Insurance Co.

Mon, 13 Jan 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-72

Petitioner

Federal Trade Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ticor Title Insurance Co. et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 621 (1992)

Argued

Monday, January 13, 1992

Decided

Friday, June 12, 1992

Advocates

John C. Christie, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Federal Trade Commission, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Willy v. Coastal Corp.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1150

Petitioner

Willy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Coastal Corp. et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 131 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, December 3, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, March 3, 1992

Advocates

Michael L. Beatty (on behalf of the Respondents)

Michael A. Maness (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Dawson v. Delaware

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-6704

Petitioner

Dawson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Delaware

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 159 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, November 12, 1991

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1992

Advocates

Richard E. Fairbanks, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Bernard J. O'Donnell (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

William "Sky" King v. St. Vincent's Hospital

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-889

Petitioner

William "Sky" King

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

St. Vincent's Hospital

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 215 (1991)

Argued

Wednesday, October 16, 1991

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1991

Advocates

Harry L. Hopkins (on behalf of the Respondent)

Amy L. Wax (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for William "Sky" King, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 2024

None

Hafer v. Melo

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-681

Petitioner

Hafer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Melo et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 21 (1991)

Argued

Tuesday, October 15, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, November 5, 1991

Advocates

Jerome R. Richter (on behalf of the Petitioner)

William Goldstein (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Evans v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-6105

Petitioner

Evans

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. 255 (1992)

Argued

Monday, December 9, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, May 26, 1992

Advocates

William C. Bryson (on behalf of the Respondent)

C. Michael Abbott (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1951

None

PFZ Properties, Inc. v. Rene Alberto Rodriguez

Wed, 26 Feb 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-122

Petitioner

PFZ Properties, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rene Alberto Rodriguez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 257 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, February 26, 1992

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1992

Advocates

Vanessa Ramirez (on behalf of the Respondents)

Thomas Richichi (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Rene Alberto Rodriguez, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Darden

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1802

Petitioner

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Darden

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 318 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, January 21, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1992

Advocates

George R. Ragsdale (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Marion G. Follin, III (on behalf of the Respondent)

Christopher J. Wright (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Forsyth County, Georgia v. Nationalist Movement

Tue, 31 Mar 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-538

Petitioner

Forsyth County, Georgia

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nationalist Movement

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 123 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, March 31, 1992

Decided

Friday, June 19, 1992

Advocates

Richard Barrett (on behalf of the Respondent)

Robert S. Stubbs, III (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-971

Petitioner

Two Pesos, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Taco Cabana, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 763 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, April 21, 1992

Decided

Friday, June 26, 1992

Advocates

Kimball J. Corson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard G. Taranto (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Taco Cabana, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 1125

None

Morgan v. Illinois

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

Location

First Municipal District Circuit Court of Cook County

2600 S California Av Chicago IL 60608

Chicago, IL 60608

United States

41° 50' 36.5964" N, 87° 41' 45.2292" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-5118

Petitioner

Derrick Morgan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 719 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, January 21, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1992

Advocates

Kenneth L. Gillis (on behalf of the Respondent)

Allen H. Andrews, III (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

In the Illinois judicial system, the jury chosen to determine a defendant's guilt or innocence also sentenced the defendant. And, the trial court, not the attorneys, performed voir dire, which involves questioning potential jurors during jury selection to determine their ability to be impartial. Before Derrick Morgan's capital murder trial, he requested that the court ask the potential jurors whether they would automatically sentence him to the death penalty upon conviction. The trial court denied Morgan's request, and he was convicted and sentenced to death. When he appealed, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, Morgan's conviction, and his sentence.

Question

Do the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment's impartial jury requirement bar a state from refusing to ask whether a potential juror would automatically vote to impose the death penalty upon a defendant convicted of a capital offense?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Byron R. White, the Court noted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the impartial jury requirement of the Sixth Amendment, in combination, indicate that the criminally accused have a right to an impartial jury. It found that a juror who would automatically vote for the death penalty in criminal sentencing would be prejudiced. The Court also concluded that, in order to detect this prejudice, an adequate voir dire is necessary. Therefore, an adequate voir dire would include a question to determine whether a juror would automatically vote for the death penalty, upon request. Thus, the decision of the Illinois State Supreme Court was reversed.

United States v. Alvarez-Machain

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-712

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alvarez-Machain

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 655 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, April 1, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1992

Advocates

Kenneth W. Starr (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Paul L. Hoffman (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools

Wed, 11 Dec 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-918

Petitioner

Franklin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gwinnett County Public Schools et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 60 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, December 11, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, February 26, 1992

Advocates

Joel I. Klein (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Stephen L. Nightingale (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondents)

Albert M. Pearson, III (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Franklin, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Education Amendments of 1972

None

Ardestani v. Immigration And Naturalization Service

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1141

Petitioner

Ardestani

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Immigration And Naturalization Service

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 129 (1991)

Argued

Tuesday, October 8, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, December 10, 1991

Advocates

David N. Soloway (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Immigration And Naturalization Service, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Access to Justice

None

United States Department Of Commerce v. Montana

Wed, 04 Mar 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-860

Appellee

Montana et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States Department Of Commerce et al.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 442 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, March 4, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, March 31, 1992

Advocates

Marc Racicot (on behalf of the Appellees)

Kenneth W. Starr (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States Department Of Commerce, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3: Apportionment of Representatives

None

Robertson, Chief, United States Forest Service v. Seattle Audubon Society

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1596

Petitioner

Robertson, Chief, United States Forest Service, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Seattle Audubon Society et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 429 (1992)

Argued

Monday, December 2, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, March 25, 1992

Advocates

Todd D. True (on behalf of the Respondents)

Kenneth W. Starr (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Robertson, Chief, United States Forest Service, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 1, Paragraph 1: Judicial Power

None

Barker v. Kansas

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-611

Petitioner

Barker et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kansas et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 594 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, March 3, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, April 21, 1992

Advocates

James A. D. Bartle (on behalf of the Respondents)

John F. Manning (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners)

Kevin M. Fowler (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Barker, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 4 U.S.C. 111

None

United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.

Mon, 13 Jan 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-164

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thompson/Center Arms Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 505 (1992)

Argued

Monday, January 13, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1992

Advocates

Stephen P. Halbrook (on behalf of the Respondent)

James A. Feldman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Thompson/Center Arms Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 26 U.S.C. 5821

None

Jacobson v. United States

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

Location

Residence of Jacobson Omaha, NE

United States

41° 15' 14.4216" N, 95° 59' 57.3288" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1124

Petitioner

Keith Jacobson

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. 540 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, November 6, 1991

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1992

Advocates

George H. Moyer, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

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

Facts of the Case

Before the Child Protection Act of 1984 rendered it illegal, Keith Jacobson, the petitioner, purchased a magazine including photographs of nude minors. In 1985, government agencies began investigating Jacobson's interest in child pornography. Over the course of about 2 ½ years, they sent him mailings from 5 fictitious organizations and one non-existent pen pal all promoting sexual liberation and challenging government censorship. After Jacobson was somewhat responsive, a government agency attempted to sting him by selling him child pornography which he purchased, resulting in his arrest and conviction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Question

Did the prosecution against Jacobson prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that agencies of the United States Government did not incite his violation of the Child Protection Act?

Conclusion

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

No. In a majority decision authored by Justice Byron R. White, the Court determined that, the prosecution was unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jacobson was inclined to commit the criminal act of purchasing child pornography independent of government interference. Doubt stems from the fact that government agencies may have actually encouraged Jacobson to break the law in their effort to prosecute him. Since the Court found that the prosecution failed, the decision of the Court of Appeals and Jacobson's conviction were reversed.

Lee v. Weisman

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

Location

Nathan Bishop Middle School

101 Sessions Street Providence RI 02906

Providence, RI 02906

United States

41° 50' 28.5612" N, 71° 23' 35.6604" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1014

Petitioner

Lee

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Weisman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 577 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, November 6, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, June 24, 1992

Advocates

Charles J. Cooper (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Sandra A. Blanding (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Kenneth W. Starr (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

In keeping with the practice of several other public middle and high school principals in Providence, Rhode Island, Robert E. Lee, a middle school principal, invited a rabbi to speak at his school's graduation ceremony. Daniel Weisman's daughter, Deborah, was among the graduates. Hoping to stop the rabbi from speaking at his daughter's graduation, Weisman sought a temporary restaining order in District Court - but was denied. After the ceremony, where prayers were recited, Weisman filed for a permanent injunction barring Lee and other Providence public school officials from inviting clergy to deliver invocations and benedictions at their schools' ceremonies. When the Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court ruling against the schools, Lee appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted certiorari.

Question

Does the inclusion of clergy who offer prayers at official public school ceremonies violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that government involvement in this case creates "a state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercise in a public school." Such conduct conflicts with settled rules proscribing prayer for students. The school's rule creates subtle and indirect coercion (students must stand respectfully and silently), forcing students to act in ways which establish a state religion. The cornerstone principle of the Establishment Clause is that government may not compose official prayers to recite as part of a religious program carried on by government.

Barnhill v. Johnson, Trustee

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-159

Petitioner

Barnhill

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Johnson, Trustee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 393 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, January 14, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, March 25, 1992

Advocates

Nancy S. Cusack (on behalf of the Respondent)

William J. Arland, III (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Johnson, Trustee, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Yee v. City Of Escondido, California

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1947

Petitioner

Yee et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

City Of Escondido, California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 519 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, January 22, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, April 1, 1992

Advocates

Carter G. Phillips (on behalf of the Respondent)

Robert J. Jagiello (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for City Of Escondido, California, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

NRPC v. Boston & Maine Corp.

Mon, 13 Jan 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1419

Petitioner

NRPC

Respondent

Boston & Maine Corp.

Consolidation

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Boston & Maine Corp., No. 90-1769

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 407 (1992)

Argued

Monday, January 13, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, March 25, 1992

Advocates

John G. Roberts, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Irwin Goldbloom (Argued the case for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Under the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (RPSA), the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) may enter into "trackage rights" agreements to use tracks owned and used by freight railroads. Section 562(d) of the act also states that Amtrak may buy tracks from private railroads, and may ask the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to condemn tracks owned by those railroads if they cannot agree on sale terms, provided that the tracks in question are "required for intercity rail passenger service." Amtrak's need for the tracks is established unless the private railroad can show either that its ability to carry out its obligations as a common carrier (that is, a transporter of public goods) will be seriously hampered or that Amtrak's needs can be met by the purchase of alternative property.

Amtrak had a "trackage rights" agreement with Boston and Maine Railroad (B & M). Amtrak claimed that it was forced to discontinue this agreement because B & M did not properly maintain its tracks. Amtrak then entered into an agreement with the Central Vermont Railroad (CV), under which it would acquire the B & M track and sell it to CV, which would take over maintenance of the track but grant "trackage rights" to Amtrak and usage rights to B & M. When B & M declined Amtrak's offer to purchase the track, Amtrak asked the ICC to condemn the track (thus allowing Amtrak to seize it). The ICC granted Amtrak's request. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, sent the case back to the ICC for reconsideration, because Amtrak had not demonstrated the need for ownership, just for use (demonstrated by its intent to convey the property to CV). Amtrak petitioned the appeals court to rehear the case, and while the petition was pending Congress amended the RPSA to explicitly allow Amtrak to seize property with the ICC's permission and then convey it to another party if that would further its mission. The appeals court denied rehearing, however, holding that the condemnation had been invalid because it was not "required for intercity rail passenger service."

Question

Was the Interstate Commerce Commission's decision to permit Amtrak to seize the property of B & M Railroad under the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 reasonable?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for NRPC, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 45 U.S.C. 501

Yes. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the ICC was entitled to deference and that its decision had been reasonable. In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that by interpreting the statute's use of "required" to mean that the track must be useful but not absolutely indispensable to Amtrak's operation, the ICC had better accommodated the underlying intention of the RPSA than the appeals court. That finding was reinforced by Congress's amendment to the act, which would only be effective under the ICC's interpretation.

Indopco, Inc. v. Commissioner Of Internal Revenue

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1278

Petitioner

Indopco, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Commissioner Of Internal Revenue

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 79 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, November 12, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, February 26, 1992

Advocates

Richard J. Hiegel (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Kent L. Jones ()

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Commissioner Of Internal Revenue, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Sochor v. Florida

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-5843

Petitioner

Sochor

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 527 (1992)

Argued

Monday, March 2, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1992

Advocates

Gary Caldwell (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Carolyn M. Snurkowski (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Norman v. Reed

Mon, 07 Oct 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1126

Petitioner

Norman et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reed et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 90-1435

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 279 (1992)

Argued

Monday, October 7, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, January 14, 1992

Advocates

Robert E. Pincham, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners Barbara Norman, et al)

Kenneth L. Gillis (on behalf of the Petitioners Cook County Electoral Board, et al)

Gregory A. Adamski (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Norman, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

None

Allied-Signal, Inc., As Successor-In-Interest To Bendix Corp. v. Director, Division Of Taxation

Wed, 04 Mar 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-615

Petitioner

Allied-Signal, Inc., As Successor-In-Interest To Bendix Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Director, Division Of Taxation

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 768 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, March 4, 1992

Reargued:

Wednesday, April 22, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1992

Advocates

Mary R. Hamill (on behalf of the Respondent)

Walter Hellerstein (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Allied-Signal, Inc., As Successor-In-Interest To Bendix Corp., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

United States v. Nordic Village, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1629

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nordic Village, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 30 (1992)

Argued

Monday, December 9, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, February 25, 1992

Advocates

Marvin A. Sicherman (on behalf of the Respondent)

Richard H. Seamon (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: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Robert E. Gibson v. Florida Bar

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1102

Petitioner

Robert E. Gibson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida Bar

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 104 (1991)

Argued

Wednesday, November 6, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, December 4, 1991

Advocates

Barry Scott Richard (on behalf of the Respondent)

Raymond J. LaJeunesse, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lee v. Int. Soc. for Krishna Consciousness

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-339

Petitioner

Lee

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Int. Soc. for Krishna Consciousness

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 830 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, March 25, 1992

Decided

Friday, June 26, 1992

Advocates

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

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

Facts of the Case

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey banned the distribution of flyers, brochures, pamphlets and other printed material at its airport terminals. Members of a religious group wanted to perform a ritual involving the distibution of literature at these airports. The group challenged the regulation on free expression and and free exercise grounds of the First Amendment.

Question

Does the regulation banning the distribution of literature at airports violate the free speech and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Int. Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

In a short per curiam opinion, the court held 5 to 4 that the ban on literature distribution violated the Free Speech Clause. (A related case, also Int. Soc. for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, addressed a ban on the solicitation of funds.)

Sawyer v. Whitley, Warden

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-6382

Petitioner

Sawyer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Whitley, Warden

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 333 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, February 25, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1992

Advocates

Dorothy A. Pendergast (on behalf of the Respondent)

Paul J. Larkin, Jr. (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae supporting Respondent)

R. Neal Walker (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Freeman v. Pitts

Mon, 07 Oct 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Location

DeKalb County School System

1701 Mountain Industrial Boulevard Stone Mountain GA 30083

Stone Mountain, GA 30083

United States

33° 49' 55.6716" N, 84° 11' 53.0736" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-1290

Petitioner

Robert R. Freeman et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Willie Eugene Pitts et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 467 (1992)

Argued

Monday, October 7, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, March 31, 1992

Advocates

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Kenneth W. Starr (Solicitor General, Department of Justice, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners)

Christopher A. Hansen (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

In 1969, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ordered the DeKalb County School System (DCSS) to eliminate its previously legal racial segregation and its inequitable byproducts under judicial control. However, in 1986, DCSS officials filed a motion, intending for the District Court to declare the DCSS officially desegregated and withdraw supervision. Green v. School Board of New Kent County, outlines 6 categories in which a school district should achieve desegregation, and the District Court found that the DCSS was successful in 4 of these categories. Consequently, the court decided to relinquish control over the DCSS in these 4 areas, while it maintained control and mandated further improvements in the areas in which segregation still existed. Both the respondents, black schoolchildren and their parents, and the petitioners, the DCSS officials, appealed the District Court's decision, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed it. The Court of Appeals argued that the District Court should have authority over the DCSS until it is fully desegregated in all 6 categories for several years.

Question

1) Is a district court permitted to withdraw supervision of a school system that is under a court-ordered desegregation decree in the areas in which the school system complies with its decree if it does not comply in every area? 2) In the case of the DCSS, was the Court of Appeals correct in reversing the District Court's decision to withdraw supervision incrementally?

Conclusion

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

Yes and No. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court found that a district court must only maintain control over a school system in the categories in which it has failed to abide by its court-ordered desegregation plan. The Court argued that this incremental approach provides district courts with a systematic and orderly means to their ultimate goal: to fully withdraw supervision. In addition, it allows the district court to focus more attention and resources where they are needed most. In compliance with the Court's determination, it reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Simon & Schuster v. NY Crime Victims Board

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1059

Petitioner

Simon & Schuster

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

NY Crime Victims Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 105 (1991)

Argued

Tuesday, October 15, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, December 10, 1991

Advocates

Howard L. Zwickel (on behalf of the Respondent)

Ronald S. Rauchberg (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

To keep criminals from profiting from crimes by selling their stories, New York State's 1977 "Son of Sam" law ordered that proceeds from such deals be turned over to the New York State Crime Victims Board. The Board was to deposit the money into escrow accounts which victims could later claim through civil suits. In 1987 the Board ordered Henry Hill, a former gangster who sold his story to Simon & Schuster, to turn over his payments from a book deal.

Question

Did the Son of Sam law violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

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

Yes. The Court concluded that "New York has singled out speech on a particular subject for a financial burden that it places on no other speech and no other income." This discrimination could only be justified if the state could show "that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and is narrowly drawn to achieve that end" (Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 231 (1987)). The Board failed to explain why victims' compensation had to come from the criminals' storytelling rather than other assets.

Patterson, Trustee v. Shumate

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-913

Petitioner

Patterson, Trustee

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shumate

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 753 (1992)

Argued

Monday, April 20, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1992

Advocates

Kevin R. Huennekens (on behalf of the Respondent)

Christopher J. Wright (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondent)

G. Steven Agee (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

White v. Illinois

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-6113

Petitioner

White

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 346 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, November 5, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, January 15, 1992

Advocates

Stephen L. Nightingale (as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondent)

Gary R. Peterson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Arleen C. Anderson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Illinois, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

None

Georgia v. McCollum

Wed, 26 Feb 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Dougherty Superior Court

225 Pine Av Albany GA 31701

Albany, GA 31701

United States

31° 34' 42.5784" N, 84° 9' 8.7804" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-372

Petitioner

Georgia

Respondent

Thomas McCollum et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 42 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, February 26, 1992

Decided

Thursday, June 18, 1992

Advocates

Harrison W. Kohler (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Michael R. Dreeben (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae supporting the Petitioner)

Robert H. Revell, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

In 1990, white respondents, Thomas McCollum, William Joseph McCollum, and Ella Hampton McCollum, were charged with assaulting two black individuals. Before the criminal trial, the prosecution moved to bar the defense from using its peremptory challenges to eliminate black people from the juror pool. The term "preemptory challenge" refers to the right to reject a potential juror during jury selection without giving a reason. The trial judge denied the prosecution's motion, and, when the prosecution appealed, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the trial judge's decision.

Question

Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibit a criminal defendant's use of peremptory challenges to discriminate against potential jurors on the basis of race?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Georgia, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court found that the exercise of peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner not only violates the rights of potential jurors, but also undermines the integrity of the judicial system. Since the Court also determined that a peremptory challenge did constitute state action, it found the use of peremptory challenge for the purpose of racial discrimination to be a breach of the Equal Protection Clause. Consequently, the decision of the Georgia Supreme Court was reversed.

Foucha v. Louisiana

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-5844

Petitioner

Foucha

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 71 (1992)

Argued

Monday, November 4, 1991

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1992

Advocates

Pamela S. Moran (on behalf of the Respondent)

James P. Manasseh (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Griffin v. United States

Mon, 07 Oct 1991 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-6352

Petitioner

Griffin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 46 (1991)

Argued

Monday, October 7, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, December 3, 1991

Advocates

William C. Bryson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Michael G. Logan (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: Due Process

None

General Motors Corp. v. Romein

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1390

Petitioner

General Motors Corp. et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Romein et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 181 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, December 10, 1991

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1992

Advocates

Theodore Sachs (on behalf of the Respondents)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Romein, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 1: Contract Clause

None

Wyoming v. Oklahoma

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

112 ORIG

Plaintiff

Wyoming

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Oklahoma

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 437 (1992)

Argued

Monday, November 4, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, January 22, 1992

Advocates

Mary B. Guthrie (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

Neal Leader (on behalf of the Defendant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

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

Location

Defenders of Wildlife

1130 17th Street NW Washington DC 20036

Washington, DC 20036

United States

38° 54' 17.8488" N, 77° 2' 19.3128" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1424

Petitioner

Lujan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Defenders of Wildlife

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 555 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, December 3, 1991

Decided

Friday, June 12, 1992

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Brian B. O'Neill (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (S7(a)(2)) required federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that any authorized actions did not jeopardize endangered or threatened species or critically destroy natural habitats. A 1986 amendment to the act limited it scope to actions in the United States or on the high seas. Defenders of Wildlife and other organizations dedicated to wildlife conservation filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that the new amendment erred by providing for a geographic limit on the original law.

Question

Do the respondents have standing to sue?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Lujan, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

No. Even if the Court were to assume that the agency-funded projects at issue threatened listed species, there was no proof that these actions would produce "actual or imminent" injuries to particular respondents who might some day wish to visit the foreign countries in question. The Court disregarded the proposed theory of "ecosystem nexus" which claimed that any person who used any part of of a "contiguous ecosystem" adversed affected by a funded activity had standing to sue.

Bray v. Alexandria Clinic

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-985

Petitioner

Bray

Respondent

Alexandria Clinic

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 263 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, October 16, 1991

Reargued:

Tuesday, October 6, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, January 13, 1993

Advocates

Jay A. Sekulow (Argued and reargued the case for the petitioners)

John G. Roberts, Jr. (Argued and reargued the case for the United States supporting the petitioners)

John H. Schafer (Argued the case for the respondents)

Deborah Ellis (Reargued the case for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Several abortion clinics sued to prevent Jayne Bray and other anti-abortion protesters from conducting demonstrations at clinics in Washington, D.C. The clinics claimed that the protesters had violated 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), which prohibits conspiracies to deprive "any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws." The protesters had sought to deny women their "right to abortion" and their right to interstate travel, the clinics argued. The District Court agreed, holding that Bray and others, by blocking access to the clinics, had conspired to deprive women seeking abortions of their right to interstate travel. The District Court also ruled for the clinics on state law trespassing and public nuisance claims, ordering the protesters to stop trespassing on or obstructing access to clinics. Finally, the District Court ordered the protesters to pay the clinics' attorney's fees and costs on the 1985(3) claim.

Question

Did anti-abortion protesters who obstructed access to Washington, D.C. abortion clinics violate 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) by conspiring to deny women their "right to abortion" or right to interstate travel?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Bray, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1985)

No. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the protesters had not violated section 1985(3) by obstructing access to the abortion clinics. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, wrote that under the Court's decision in Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, there must be a "class- based, invidiously discriminatory animus [underlying] the conspirators' action" for it to violate 1985(3). The clinics' claim that the protesters had demonstrated "animus" toward women as a class was unfounded because the demonstrations were not directed at women but rather were intended to protect the victims of abortion, stop its practice, and reverse its legalization. Opposition to abortion cannot reasonably be presumed to reflect gender-based intent, Justice Scalia wrote, because there are common and respectable reasons for opposing abortion other than a derogatory view of women.

In addition to holding that the protesters did not exercise discriminatory animus, Scalia also addressed the specific rights on which the clinics based their arguments. The right to interstate travel, Scalia pointed out, was not affected here because the protests were carried out entirely within the District of Columbia and were not aimed specifically at interstate travelers. Nor was the "right to abortion" implicated, he wrote, because that right was merely one to be free of governmental interference in the decision. The protesters, acting as private individuals, could not possibly violate that right.

Doggett v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-857

Petitioner

Doggett

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 647 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, October 9, 1991

Reargued:

Monday, February 24, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, June 24, 1992

Advocates

Robert S. Mueller, III (on behalf of the Respondent)

William J. Sheppard (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Doggett, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Speedy Trial

None

Franklin v. Massachusetts

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1502

Appellant

Massachusetts

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Franklin

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 788 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, April 21, 1992

Decided

Friday, June 26, 1992

Advocates

John G. Roberts, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Dwight Golann (Argued the case for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

Under Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, a census must be conducted every ten years and the distribution of Representatives in Congress adjusted to provide proportional representation. The census is designed and carried out by the Secretary of Commerce before the results are forwarded to the President, who determines the number of Representatives each state will receive. In 1990, for only the second time since 1900, the census allocated employees of the Department of Defense who were stationed oversees to the states designated their "homes of record." Massachusetts claimed that this adjustment of the census shifted one Representative from Massachusetts to Washington state. They brought suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Constitution, arguing that the allocation of overseas personnel to their "homes of record" was arbitrary and capricious under the APA standards and did not meet the constitutional requirement of counting the number of people "in each State."

Question

Did the Secretary of Commerce's decision to apportion overseas personnel of the Department of Defense to their "homes of record" for census purposes meet the constitutional requirement of a census counting the number of people "in each State," or was the procedure "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Franklin, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Administrative Procedure, or Administrative Orders Review

The Secretary's decision was not reviewable under the APA because it was not a "final agency action." Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in the majority opinion, wrote that only agency decisions that complete the decision-making process and directly affect the party bring suit may be challenged under the APA. In this case the Secretary's decision resulted merely in a set of findings reported to the President that he could ask to have revised using a different formula. Also, the recommendation (and therefore the procedure used to arrive at it) did not directly affect Massachusetts; the President had to take action before the findings would affect the number of Representatives apportioned to the State. The procedure and the findings that resulted from it, therefore, was not a "final agency action" challengeable under the APA, and the actions of the President are also not challengeable under the APA.

Evaluating the Secretary's chosen procedure under Article I Section 2 of the Constitution, however, Justice O'Connor ruled that the decision to include overseas personnel of the Department of Defense was a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution's intent. "The Secretary's judgment does not hamper the underlying constitutional goal of equal representation, but, assuming that employees temporarily stationed abroad have indeed retained their ties to their home states, actually promotes equality," wrote Justice O'Connor.

Burson v. Freeman

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1056

Petitioner

Burson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Freeman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 191 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, October 8, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, May 26, 1992

Advocates

Charles W. Burson (Petitioner, argued the cause, pro se)

John E. Herbison (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Freeman, a Tennessee political campaign treasurer, challenged the constitutionality of the Tennessee Code forbidding the solicitation of votes and the display or distribution of campaign materials within 100 feet of entrances to polling facilities. On appeal from a lower court's dismissal, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, finding that the 100-foot ban was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court granted Burson certiorari.

Question

Did Tennessee's 100-foot limit violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech?

Conclusion

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

No. After subjecting Tennessee's statute to exacting scrutiny, since it constituted a facial content-based restriction on political speech in a public forum, the Court held that the statute was narrowly drafted to serve a compelling state interest. By creating a safe zone around polling sites, the statute served the state's interest in protecting its citizen's right to vote freely and effectively. Moreover, the 100-foot zone was acceptable since it was not so large as to completely block out the presence of political messages.

Ankenbrandt, As Next Friend And Mother Of L. R. v. Richards

Tue, 31 Mar 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-367

Petitioner

Ankenbrandt, As Next Friend And Mother Of L. R., et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Richards et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 689 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, March 31, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1992

Advocates

Richard Lynn Ducote (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Paul S. Weidenfeld (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Ankenbrandt, As Next Friend And Mother Of L. R., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1332

None

Keeney, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary v. Tamayo-Reyes

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1859

Petitioner

Keeney, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tamayo-Reyes

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 1 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, January 15, 1992

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1992

Advocates

Jack L. Landau (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Steven T. Wax (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Keeney, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Department Of Natural Resources

Mon, 30 Mar 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-636

Petitioner

Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Michigan Department Of Natural Resources et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 353 (1992)

Argued

Monday, March 30, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1992

Advocates

Thomas L. Casey (on behalf of the Respondents)

Harold B. Finn, III (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

United States v. Alaska

Mon, 24 Feb 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

118 ORIG

Plaintiff

United States

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Alaska

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 569 (1992)

Argued

Monday, February 24, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, April 21, 1992

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

John G. Gissberg (on behalf of the Defendant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 33 U.S.C. 403

None

United States v. R. L. C.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1577

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

R. L. C.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 291 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, December 10, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1992

Advocates

Katherian D. Roe (on behalf of the Respondent)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for R. L. C., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 5037

None