Cases - 1992 term

Negonsott v. Samuels, Warden

Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-5397

Petitioner

Negonsott

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Samuels, Warden, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 99 (1993)

Argued

Monday, January 11, 1993

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1993

Advocates

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

Pamela S. Thompson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Robert T. Stephan (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Samuels, Warden, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 3243

None

Mississippi v. Louisiana

Mon, 09 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1158

Petitioner

Mississippi et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 73 (1992)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1992

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1992

Advocates

Gary L. Keyser (on behalf of the Respondents)

James W. McCartney (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mississippi, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1251

None

Crosby v. United States

Mon, 09 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-6194

Petitioner

Crosby

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 255 (1993)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, January 13, 1993

Advocates

Mark D. Nyvold (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard H. Seamon (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Austin v. United States

Tue, 20 Apr 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-6073

Petitioner

Austin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 602 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, April 20, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1993

Advocates

Miguel A. Estrada (on behalf of the Respondent)

Richard L. Johnson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Austin, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 21 U.S.C. 881

None

Puerto Rico Aqueduct And Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.

Mon, 09 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1010

Petitioner

Puerto Rico Aqueduct And Sewer Authority

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 139 (1993)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, January 12, 1993

Advocates

Richard G. Taranto (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Peter W. Sipkins (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Puerto Rico Aqueduct And Sewer Authority, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Bufferd v. Commissioner Of Internal Revenue

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-7804

Petitioner

Bufferd

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Commissioner Of Internal Revenue

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 523 (1993)

Argued

Monday, November 30, 1992

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1993

Advocates

Kent L. Jones (on behalf of the Respondent)

Stuart Jay Filler (on behalf of the Petitioner)

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

United States By And Through Internal Revenue Service v. Mcdermott

Mon, 07 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1229

Petitioner

United States By And Through Internal Revenue Service

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mcdermott et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 447 (1993)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1993

Advocates

James A. Feldman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

T. Richard Davis (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States By And Through Internal Revenue Service, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Arave, Warden v. Creech

Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1160

Petitioner

Arave, Warden

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Creech

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 463 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, March 30, 1993

Advocates

Lynn E. Thomas (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Clifford Gardner (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Sullivan v. Louisiana

Mon, 29 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-5129

Petitioner

Sullivan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 275 (1993)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1993

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1993

Advocates

John Wilson Reed (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Jack Peebles (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Green

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1521

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Green

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 545 (1993)

Argued

Monday, November 30, 1992

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1993

Advocates

John G. Roberts, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Joseph R. Conte (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

District Of Columbia v. Greater Washington Board Of Trade

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1326

Petitioner

District Of Columbia et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Greater Washington Board Of Trade

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 125 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, November 3, 1992

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1992

Advocates

Donna M. Murasky (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Lawrence P. Postol (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Greater Washington Board Of Trade, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Edenfield v. Fane

Mon, 07 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1594

Petitioner

Edenfield et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fane

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 761 (1993)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1992

Decided

Monday, April 26, 1993

Advocates

David C. Vladeck (on behalf of the Respondent)

Parker D. Thomson (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins

Wed, 13 Jan 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1600

Petitioner

Hazen Paper Co. et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Biggins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 604 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, January 13, 1993

Decided

Tuesday, April 20, 1993

Advocates

Maurice M. Cahillane, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

John R. Dunne (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae supporting the Respondent)

Robert B. Gordon (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hazen Paper Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Age Discrimination in Employment (ADEA)

None

Voinovich, Governor Of Ohio v. Quilter, Speaker Pro Tempore Of Ohio House Of Representatives

Tue, 08 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1618

Appellee

Quilter, Speaker Pro Tempore Of Ohio House Of Representatives, et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Voinovich, Governor Of Ohio, et al.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 146 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, December 8, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1993

Advocates

Thomas G. Hungar (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae supporting Appellants)

N. Victor Goodman (on behalf of the Appellants)

Armistead W. Gilliam, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Voinovich, Governor Of Ohio, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

None

Heller v. Doe

Mon, 22 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Mental Retardation Residential Treatment Center

1800 Bluegrass Avenue Louisville KY 40215

Louisville, KY 40215

United States

38° 10' 46.4304" N, 85° 47' 33.5076" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-351

Petitioner

Heller, Secretary, Kentucky Cabinet For Human Resources

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Doe, By His Mother And Next Friend, Doe, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 312 (1993)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1993

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 1993

Advocates

William K. Moore (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Kelly Miller (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

A class of involuntarily committed mentally retarded persons brought suit against Kentucky in a Kentucky federal court challenging the constitutionality of the state's involuntary commitment procedures. The district court agreed that the procedures were unconstitutional and prevented the enforcement of the applicable statute. After multiple appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit instructed the state to amend its procedures.

Question

Do Kentucky's involuntary commitment procedures for retarded persons violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Heller, Secretary, Kentucky Cabinet For Human Resources, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

No. The Supreme Court held that Kentucky's procedures for involuntarily committing mentally retarded persons did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. With Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that because retarded persons are not a suspect classification, Kentucky's statute warranted only rational basis scrutiny – the Court's lowest level of scrutiny. Consequently, the Court concluded that the state met its burden that its procedures were rationally related to a legitimate government purpose and were constitutional.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote separately, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. She argued, in contrast to the majority, that Kentucky's commitment procedures were irrational. Justice Harold A. Blackmun also dissented. He argued that laws that discriminate against the mentally retarded warrant heightened scrutiny by the Court. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justices Blackmun and John Paul Stevens, and in part by Justice O'Connor, dissented. He argued that Kentucky's commitment procedures were not supported by any rational justification.

Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence And Coordination Unit

Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1657

Petitioner

Leatherman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence And Coordination Unit

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 163 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, January 12, 1993

Decided

Wednesday, March 3, 1993

Advocates

Brett A. Ringle (on behalf of the Respondents)

Richard Gladden (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. A Parcel Of Land, Buildings, Appurtenances, And Improvements, Known As 92 Buena Vista Avenue, Rumson, New Jersey

Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-781

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

A Parcel Of Land, Buildings, Appurtenances, And Improvements, Known As 92 Buena Vista Avenue, Rumson, New Jersey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 111 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1993

Advocates

James A. Plaisted (on behalf of the Respondent)

Amy L. Wax (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for A Parcel Of Land, Buildings, Appurtenances, And Improvements, Known As 92 Buena Vista Avenue, Rumson, New Jersey, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 21 U.S.C. 881

None

Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. Mcquillan Et Vir, Dba Sorboturf Enterprises

Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-10

Petitioner

Spectrum Sports, Inc., et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mcquillan Et Vir, Dba Sorboturf Enterprises

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 447 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1992

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1993

Advocates

James D. Vail (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Jeffrey M. Shohet (on behalf of the Respondents)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Spectrum Sports, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah

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

Location

City Council of Hialeah

501 Palm Ave Hialeah FL 33010

Hialeah, FL 33010

United States

25° 49' 36.3936" N, 80° 16' 50.0088" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-948

Petitioner

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hialeah

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 520 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, November 4, 1992

Decided

Friday, June 11, 1993

Advocates

Richard G. Garrett (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Douglas Laycock (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye practiced the Afro-Caribbean-based religion of Santeria. Santeria used animal sacrifice as a form of worship in which an animal's carotid arteries would be cut and, except during healing and death rights, the animal would be eaten. Shortly after the announcement of the establishment of a Santeria church in Hialeah, Florida, the city council adopted several ordinances addressing religious sacrifice. The ordinances prohibited possession of animals for sacrifice or slaughter, with specific exemptions for state-licensed activities.

Question

Did the city of Hialeah's ordinance, prohibiting ritual animal sacrifices, violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Free Exercise of Religion

Yes. The Court held that the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable. The ordinances had to be justified by a compelling governmental interest and they had to be narrowly tailored to that interest. The core failure of the ordinances were that they applied exclusively to the church. The ordinances singled out the activities of the Santeria faith and suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve their stated ends. Only conduct tied to religious belief was burdened. The ordinances targeted religious behavior, therefore they failed to survive the rigors of strict strutiny.

Cardinal Chemical v. Morton International

Wed, 03 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-114

Petitioner

Cardinal Chemical

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Morton International

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 83 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, March 3, 1993

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1993

Advocates

Gordon R. Coons (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Charles F. Schill (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Acting upon a belief that Cardinal Chemical ("Cardinal") violated two of its patents on chemical compounds used in polyvinyl chloride, Morton International ("Morton") challenged Cardinal's actions in a South Carolina District Court. Cardinal counterclaimed that Morton's patents were invalid. The District Court ruled that although none of Morton's patents were violated, they were both invalid. Morton appealed to the Federal Circuit Court which sustained the lower courts infringement finding but issued a per se reversal of its determination as to the validity of Morton's patents based on a practice dating back to 1987. Cardinal appealed the per se rejection of its validity counterclaim and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question

Can a federal court, with exclusive jurisdiction over all federal appeals concerning patent litigation, use its finding that a patent has not been infringed as a per se justification for upholding the validity of the disputed patents themselves?

Conclusion

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

No. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that two questions of law do not always necessarily cancel each other out when only one is resolved. The Court observed that in matters of patent law, noninfringement and invalidity are two separate questions. Therefore, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may find that a patent has not been infringed but it may not rely on such a determination as a per se basis for vacating a judgement holding the same patent invalid. Although the Court of Appeals' dogmatic practice existed since 1987, it was unsupported by the "case or controversy" requirement of Article III, and imposed undue burdens on those who remained convinced of the disputed patent's invalidity.

Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1695

Petitioner

Pioneer Investment Services Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 380 (1993)

Argued

Monday, November 30, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1993

Advocates

Craig J. Donaldson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John A. Lucas (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Graham v. Collins, Director, Texas Department Of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division

Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-7580

Petitioner

Graham

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Collins, Director, Texas Department Of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 461 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, October 14, 1992

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1993

Advocates

Michael E. Tigar (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Charles A. Palmer (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Collins, Director, Texas Department Of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc.

Mon, 29 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-603

Petitioner

Federal Communications Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Beach Communications, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 307 (1993)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1993

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1993

Advocates

Deborah C. Costlow (Argued the cause for the respondents)

John F. Manning (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Section 602(7)(B) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 provides that cable television systems be franchised by local governmental authorities, but exempts facilities serving "only subscribers in 1 or more multiple unit dwellings under common ownership, control, or management, unless such...facilities use any public right-of-way." When the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled that satellite master antenna television (SMATV) systems, which typically receive a satellite signal through a rooftop dish and then retransmits the signal by wire to units within a building or a building complex, are subject to the franchise requirement if their transmission lines interconnect separately owned and managed buildings or if its lines use or cross any public right-of-way, Beach Communications, Inc. and other SMATV operators petitioned the Court of Appeals for review. Among other things, the appellate court found that section 602(7) violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because there was no rational basis for distinguishing between those facilities exempted by the statute and SMATV systems linking separately owned and managed buildings.

Question

Is there a conceivable rational basis justifying the distinction between cable facilities that serve separately owned and managed buildings and those that serve one or more buildings under common ownership or management for purposes of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for FCC, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Communication Act of 1934

Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that section 602(7)(B)'s common-ownership distinction is constitutional because the statutory classification neither proceeded along suspect lines nor infringed fundamental constitutional rights. "As we have indicated," Justice Thomas concluded, "there are plausible rationales unrelated to the use of public rights-of-way for regulating cable facilities serving separately owned and managed buildings. The assumptions underlying these rationales may be erroneous, but the very fact that they are 'arguable' is sufficient, on rational-basis review, to 'immunize' the congressional choice from constitutional challenge." Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a concurring opinion.

Reiter v. Cooper, Trustee For Carolina Motor Express, Inc.

Tue, 01 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1496

Petitioner

Reiter et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cooper, Trustee For Carolina Motor Express, Inc., et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 258 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, December 1, 1992

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1993

Advocates

Carter G. Phillips (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Joseph L. Steinfeld, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondents)

Michael R. Dreeben (on behalf of the United States and ICC, as amici curiae supporting Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Reiter, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Director, Office Of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department Of Labor

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-871

Petitioner

Bath Iron Works Corp. et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Director, Office Of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department Of Labor, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 153 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, November 4, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, January 12, 1993

Advocates

Kevin M. Gillis (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Ronald W. Lupton (on behalf of the Respondent employee)

Christopher J. Wright (on behalf of the Federal Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Director, Office Of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department Of Labor, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation

None

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District

Wed, 24 Feb 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Catalina Foothills School District

2101 E. River Road Tucson AZ 85718

Tucson, AZ 85718

United States

32° 17' 17.3112" N, 110° 56' 24.5256" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-94

Petitioner

Zobrest

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Catalina Foothills School District

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 1 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, February 24, 1993

Decided

Friday, June 18, 1993

Advocates

William B. Ball (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

William C. Bryson (Department of Justice, argued on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioners)

John C. Richardson (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

James Zobrest was deaf since birth. He attended public school through the eighth grade where the local school board provided a sign-language interpreter. Zobrest's parents elected to send their son to a Roman Catholic high school and requested that the local school board continue to provide their son with a sign-language interpreter. The school board denied the request on constitutional grounds. The Zobrests then filed suit, alleging that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the school district to provide the interpreter and that the Establishment Clause did not bar such relief. The District Court granted the school district summary judgment on the ground that the interpreter would act as a conduit for the child's religious inculcation, thereby promoting his religious development at government expense in violation of the Establishment Clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question

May a school district decline to provide an interpreter to a deaf child based on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

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

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the Establishment Clause did not bar the school district from providing the requested interpreter. Chief Justice Rehnquist reasoned that, because the IDEA creates no financial incentive for parents to choose a sectarian school, the presence of an interpreter is not linked to the state and is the result of the private decision of individual's parents. "The service at issue in this case is part of a general government program that distributes benefits neutrally to any child qualifying as 'handicapped' under the IDEA, without regard to the 'sectarian-nonsectarian, or public-nonpublic nature' of the school the child attends," wrote Chief Justice Rehnquist.

United States Department Of Treasury v. Fabe, Superintendent Of Insurance Of Ohio

Tue, 08 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1513

Petitioner

United States Department Of Treasury et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fabe, Superintendent Of Insurance Of Ohio

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 491 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, December 8, 1992

Decided

Friday, June 11, 1993

Advocates

James R. Rishel (on behalf of the Respondent)

Robert A. Long, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States Department Of Treasury, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 1011

None

Shaw v. Reno

Tue, 20 Apr 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Location

North Carolina General Assembly

16 West Jones Street Raleigh NC 27601

Raleigh, NC 27601

United States

35° 46' 59.5704" N, 78° 38' 20.202" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-357

Appellee

Reno

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Shaw

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 630 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, April 20, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1993

Advocates

Robinson O. Everett (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Edwin S. Kneedler (Argued the cause for the federal appellees)

H. Jefferson Powell (Argued the cause for the state appellees)

Facts of the Case

The U.S. Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment plan because the plan created only one black-majority district. North Carolina submitted a second plan creating two black-majority districts. One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched. Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives. After a three-judge District Court ruled that they failed to state a constitutional claim, the residents appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question

Did the North Carolina residents' claim, that the State created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Shaw, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. The Court held that although North Carolina's reapportionment plan was racially neutral on its face, the resulting district shape was bizarre enough to suggest that it constituted an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race. The unusual district, while perhaps created by noble intentions, seemed to exceed what was reasonably necessary to avoid racial imbalances. After concluding that the residents' claim did give rise to an equal protection challenge, the Court remanded - adding that in the absence of contradictory evidence, the District Court would have to decide whether or not some compelling governmental interest justified North Carolina's plan.

Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc.

Tue, 30 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-7604

Petitioner

Antoine

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Byers & Anderson, Inc., et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 429 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, March 30, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1993

Advocates

M. Margaret McKeown (on behalf of the Petitioner)

William P. Fite (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Demisay

Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-610

Petitioner

Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Demisay et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 581 (1993)

Argued

Monday, January 11, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1993

Advocates

Ronald E. Richman (on behalf of the Respondents)

Henry Rose (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Keene Corp. v. United States

Tue, 23 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-166

Petitioner

Keene Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 200 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, March 23, 1993

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1993

Advocates

Richard G. Taranto (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace ()

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1500

None

Mcneil v. United States

Mon, 19 Apr 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-6033

Petitioner

Mcneil

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 106 (1993)

Argued

Monday, April 19, 1993

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1993

Advocates

William K. Kelley (on behalf of the Respondent)

Allen E. Shoenberger (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Tort Claims, or Alien Tort Statute

None

Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department Of Correction v. Fretwell

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1393

Petitioner

Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department Of Correction

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fretwell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 364 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, November 3, 1992

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1993

Advocates

Winston Bryant (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Ricky Reed Medlock (on behalf of the Respondent)

Amy L. Wax (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae supporting the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department Of Correction, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Hadley v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-6646

Petitioner

Verl Hadley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 19 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, November 4, 1992

Decided

Monday, November 16, 1992

Advocates

William C. Bryson (on behalf of the Respondent)

John Trebon (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Godinez, Warden v. Moran

Wed, 21 Apr 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-725

Petitioner

Godinez, Warden

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Moran

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 389 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, April 21, 1993

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 1993

Advocates

Cal J. Potter, III (on behalf of the Respondent)

David F. Sarnowski (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Amy L. Wax (as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Farrar, Coadministrators Of Estate Of Farrar, Deceased v. Hobby

Wed, 07 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-990

Petitioner

Farrar et al., Coadministrators Of Estate Of Farrar, Deceased

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hobby

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 103 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, October 7, 1992

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1992

Advocates

Finis E. Cowan (on behalf of the Respondent)

Gerald M. Birnberg (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hobby, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

United States v. Olano

Wed, 09 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1306

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Olano et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 725 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, December 9, 1992

Decided

Monday, April 26, 1993

Advocates

Carter G. Phillips (on behalf of the Respondents)

Kenneth W. Starr (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: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Sac And Fox Nation

Tue, 23 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-259

Petitioner

Oklahoma Tax Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sac And Fox Nation

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 114 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, March 23, 1993

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1993

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae)

David Allen Miley (on behalf of the Petitioner)

G. William Rice (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Sac And Fox Nation, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1151

None

United States v. California

Tue, 23 Feb 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Williams Brothers Engineering Company

One Williams Center Tulsa OK 74172

Tulsa, OK 74172

United States

36° 9' 17.7336" N, 95° 59' 25.7748" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-2003

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California and California State Board of Equalization

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 746 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, February 23, 1993

Decided

Monday, April 26, 1993

Advocates

Robert D. Milam (on behalf of the Respondents)

Kent L. Jones (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

From 1975 to 1985, the United States Government contracted with Williams Brothers Engineering Company (WBEC) to conduct the federal oil drilling in Kern County, California. By 1981, WBEC had accrued a state tax deficit of $14 million. After the Board of Equalization rejected WBEC's claim that those taxes were invalid, the company paid its deficit, and, according to WBEC's contract, was subsequently reimbursed by the United States Government. In January of 1988, WBEC continued to challenge the taxes by filing an action in state court. This action concluded with an agreement between the state of California and WBEC that the company receive a $3 million refund. The Federal Government filed a suit in the Eastern District of California in May of 1988, arguing that the remaining state taxes totaling $11 million were also illegitimate. The District Court ruled in favor of the state of California, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Question

May the United States Government receive compensation for the state of California's allegedly unfounded taxation of a private federal contractor?

Conclusion

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

No. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court determined that regardless of the fact that the Federal Government reimburses WBEC for its taxes, the private company is still the taxpayer. And, the taxpayer had its opportunity to go to court and challenge the state taxes imposed upon it, and accepted the result. The Court found that the Federal Government does not have a separate right to do so.

Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California

Tue, 23 Feb 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1111

Petitioner

Hartford Fire Insurance Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 91-1128

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 764 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, February 23, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1993

Advocates

Molly S. Boast (Argued the cause for the petitioners (Merrett Underwriting Agency Management))

Laurel A. Price (Argued the cause for the respondents in both cases)

Stephen M. Shapiro (Argued the cause for the petitioners (Hartford Fire Ins.))

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

Nineteen States and many private plaintiffs filed complaints alleging that the defendants -- domestic primary insurers, trade associations, and a reinsurance broker, along with London-based as well as domestic reinsurers -- violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, by engaging in various conspiracies aimed at forcing certain other primary insurers to change the terms of their standard domestic commercial general liability insurance policies. After the actions were consolidated for litigation, the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the conduct alleged fell within the grant of antitrust immunity contained in Section 2(b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1012(b), and that none of the conduct amounted to a "boycott" within the meaning of the Section 3(b), 15 U.S.C. Section 1013(b), exemption to that grant of immunity. The court of appeals reversed.

Question

First, did the plaintiffs sufficiently allege "boycotts," as used in the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Section 3(b)? Second, did international comity counsel against exercising Sherman Act jurisdiction over the conduct of the London- based defendants?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 1012

Yes to the first; no to the second. The Court, speaking through Justice Antonin Scalia, held that a boycott exists when, in order to coerce a target into certain terms on one transaction, parties refuse to engage in other, unrelated transactions with the target. On most counts, the plaintiffs' allegations, construed favorably, described boycotts. Justice David H. Souter wrote for the Court on jurisdiction over foreign conduct, holding that it was appropriate in this case because there is no true conflict between domestic and foreign law. That is, because the London reinsurers can comply with both British law and the Sherman Act, international comity does not counsel against exercising subject matter jurisdiction in this case.

Reno, Attorney General v. Flores

Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-905

Petitioner

Reno, Attorney General, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Flores et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 292 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, March 23, 1993

Advocates

Maureen E. Mahoney (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Carlos Holguin (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville, Florida

Mon, 22 Feb 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Jacksonville City Council

117 W Duval St Jacksonville FL 32202

Jacksonville, FL 32202

United States

30° 19' 48.216" N, 81° 39' 32.6484" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1721

Petitioner

Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

City of Jacksonville, Florida, et al.

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 656 (1993)

Argued

Monday, February 22, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1993

Advocates

Deborah A. Ausburn (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Leonard S. Magid (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

In 1984, the Minority Business Enterprise Participation ordinance was passed in Jacksonville, Florida which set aside 10 percent of the budget for city contracts to hire minority-owned businesses. On April 4, 1989, the Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, an association of individuals and companies that worked in construction in Jacksonville, filed an action against the city and its mayor in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, claiming that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court ruled in favor of the association, but when the city appealed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed. The appellate court held that the association lacked standing to file the action because it did not demonstrate that one or more of its members would have received a reserved city contract but for the ordinance.

Question

In order to have standing to challenge the Jacksonville, Florida ordinance favoring minority-owned businesses, must an association of contractors demonstrate that at least one of its members would have received a city contract in the absence of the ordinance?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Northeastern Florida Chapter Of The Associated General Contractors Of America, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

No. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court noted that, in order to file an action, the petitioner must have demonstrated that, as a result of the challenged ordinance, its members suffered injury or that injury was imminent, and that a favorable ruling could have been expected to rectify the injury. The majority determined that the association members' possible lack of fair opportunity as a consequence of the ordinance would have constituted injury. Since the association members would have competed for the reserved city contracts in the absence of the ordinance, the Court found that they did have standing and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Soldal Et Ux. v. Cook County, Illinois

Mon, 05 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-6516

Petitioner

Soldal Et Ux.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cook County, Illinois, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 56 (1992)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, December 8, 1992

Advocates

John L. Stainthorp (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Kenneth L. Gillis (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Soldal Et Ux., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Richmond v. Lewis, Director, Arizona Department Of Corrections

Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-7094

Petitioner

Richmond

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lewis, Director, Arizona Department Of Corrections, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 40 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, December 1, 1992

Advocates

Paul Joseph McMurdie (on behalf of the Respondents)

Timothy K. Ford (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Richmond, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

None

United States v. Idaho, Ex Rel. Director, Idaho Dept of Water Resources

Mon, 29 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-190

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Idaho, Ex Rel. Director, Idaho Dept of Water Resources

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 1 (1993)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1993

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1993

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Clive J. Strong (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: 43 U.S.C. 666

None

Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School District

Wed, 24 Feb 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Center Moriches School District

511 Main Street Center Moriches NY 11934

Center Moriches, NY 11934

United States

40° 48' 2.2356" N, 72° 47' 55.6044" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-2024

Petitioner

Lamb's Chapel

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Center Moriches School District

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 384 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, February 24, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1993

Advocates

Jay A. Sekulow (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

John W. Hoefling (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

A New York law authorized schools to regulate the after-hour use of school property and facilities. The Center Moriches School District, acting under the statute, prohibited the use of its property by any religious group. The District refused repeated requests by Lamb's Chapel to use the school's facilities for an after-hours religious-oriented film series on family values and child rearing. The Chapel brought suit against the School District in federal court.

Question

Did the District violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech when it denied Lamb's Chapel the use of school premises to show religious-oriented films?

Conclusion

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

Yes, by a unaminous vote. The Supreme Court's holding consisted of two parts. First, the District violated freedom of speech by refusing the Chapel's request to show movies on school premises solely because such movies were religiously oriented. While non-public schools are permitted under New York law to restrict access to their premises based on subject matter or speaker identity, such restrictions must be reasonable and "viewpoint neutral." In this case, the District's restriction was neither reasonable nor viewpoint neutral, since it allowed the presentation of all other views about family values and child rearing - except those which were presented from a religious perspective. Second, a grant of permission to the Chapel to use the District's premises would not have amounted to an establishment of religion. This is because the showing of the films would neither be school-sponsored during school hours nor closed to the public.

Gilmore v. Taylor

Tue, 02 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1738

Petitioner

Gilmore

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Taylor

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 333 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, March 2, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1993

Advocates

Lawrence Charles Marshall (on behalf of the Respondent)

Mark E. Wilson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Good Samaritan Hospital v. Shalala, Secretary Of Health And Human Services

Mon, 22 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-2079

Petitioner

Good Samaritan Hospital et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shalala, Secretary Of Health And Human Services

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 402 (1993)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1993

Advocates

Carel T. Hedlund (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Edward C. DuMont (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Shalala, Secretary Of Health And Human Services, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Medicare--provisions of the Social Security Act

None

Commissioner Of Internal Revenue v. Soliman

Mon, 05 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-998

Petitioner

Commissioner Of Internal Revenue

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Soliman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 168 (1993)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, January 12, 1993

Advocates

David M. Sokolow (on behalf of the Respondent)

Kent L. Jones (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Brecht v. Abrahamson

Tue, 01 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-7358

Petitioner

Todd A. Brecht

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gordon A. Abrahamson, Superintendent, Dodge Correctional Institution

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 619 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, December 1, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, April 21, 1993

Advocates

William P. Barr (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae supporting the Respondent)

Allen E. Shoenberger (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Sally L. Wellman (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

Todd Brecht was charged with murder for shooting his brother-in-law. During his trial, he testified that the shooting was an accident. In addition to presenting other evidence, the prosecution pointed out his silence (both prior to his receiving the Miranda warnings and after) in an attempt to discredit his testimony. Brecht was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

Brecht appealed, claiming that the prosecution's reference to his post-Miranda silence violated his right to due process according to Doyle v. Ohio. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, but the Supreme Court of Wisconsin reinstated it. They found that the mention of post-Miranda silence was impermissible under Doyle, but was also harmless error according to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard from Chapman v. California.

Brecht sought a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. The District Court upheld his Doyle claim and found that the violation was not harmless error under Chapman. Brecht's conviction was thus overturned again, only to be reinstated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The Seventh Circuit held that Chapman was not the appropriate standard under which to review Doyle error in federal habeas petitions. Rather than adhering to the Chapman standard, the court applied the Kotteakos v. United States test, which requires that the Doyle error have a "substantial and injurious effect" on the jury's verdict. Brecht's Doyle claim did not meet this standard, and the Seventh Circuit denied the writ.

Question

Is the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard from Chapman v. California the appropriate standard for setting aside a conviction on the basis of constitutional error?

Conclusion

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

No. In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote that the "substantial and injurious effect" test was preferable to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" test in requests for habeas corpus relief. Habeas proceedings are not to be the primary avenue for resolving disputes; Rehnquist called the writ "an extraordinary remedy", reserved for the victims of grave injustice. The Kotteakos standard, then, was sufficient to determine whether Brecht deserved habeas relief.

Itel Containers International Corp. v. Huddleston, Commissioner Of Revenue Of Tennessee

Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-321

Petitioner

Itel Containers International Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Huddleston, Commissioner Of Revenue Of Tennessee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 60 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, October 14, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1993

Advocates

Philip W. Collier (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Charles W. Burson (on behalf of the Respondent)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Huddleston, Commissioner Of Revenue Of Tennessee, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Csx Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood

Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-790

Petitioner

Csx Transportation, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Easterwood

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 91-1206

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 658 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, January 12, 1993

Decided

Wednesday, April 21, 1993

Advocates

Tambra P. Colston (on behalf of the Respondent/Cross-petitioner)

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

Howard J. Trienens (on behalf of the Petitioner/Cross-respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Csx Transportation, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 45 U.S.C. 434

None

Concrete Pipe & Products Of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust For Southern California

Tue, 01 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-904

Petitioner

Concrete Pipe & Products Of California, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Construction Laborers Pension Trust For Southern California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 602 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, December 1, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1993

Advocates

John S. Miller, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Dennis R. Murphy (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Carol Connor Flowe (on behalf of the amicus curiae supporting the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Construction Laborers Pension Trust For Southern California, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States

Mon, 07 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-7749

Petitioner

Ortega-Rodriguez

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 234 (1993)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1992

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1993

Advocates

James Robert Gailey (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Amy L. Wax (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Ortega-Rodriguez, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

City Of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc.

Mon, 09 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1200

Petitioner

City Of Cincinnati

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Discovery Network, Inc., et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 410 (1993)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1993

Advocates

Marc D. Mezibov (on behalf of the Respondent)

Mark S. Yurick (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Minnesota v. Dickerson

Wed, 03 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Location

An apartment on the North Side

Morgan Avenue North Minneapolis MN 55412

Minneapolis, MN 55412

United States

45° 1' 0.516" N, 93° 18' 16.0092" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-2019

Petitioner

Minnesota

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Timothy Dickerson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 366 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, March 3, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1993

Advocates

Michael O. Freeman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard H. Seamon (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Peter W. Gorman (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

On November 9, 1989, while exiting an apartment building with a history of cocaine trafficking, Timothy Dickerson spotted police officers and turned to walk in the opposite direction. In response, the officers commanded Dickerson to stop and proceeded to frisk him. An officer discovered a lump in Dickerson's jacket pocket, and, upon further tactile investigation, formed the belief that it was cocaine. The officer reached into Dickerson's pocket and confirmed that the lump was in fact a small bag of cocaine. Consequently, Dickerson was charged with possession of a controlled substance. He requested that the cocaine be excluded from evidence, but the trial court denied his request and he was found guilty. Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, and the State Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision.

Question

When a police officer detects contraband through his or her sense of touch during a protective patdown search, does the Fourth Amendment permit its seizure and subsequent introduction into evidence? Was the police officer who frisked Dickerson adhering to the Fourth Amendment when he formed the belief, through his sense of touch, that the lump in Dickerson's jacket pocket was cocaine?

Conclusion

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

Yes and No. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Byron R. White, the Court recalled that a police officer may seize contraband when it is in plain sight, and "its incriminating character is immediately apparent". It held that instances in which an officer uses the sense of sight to discover illegal goods are analogous to those involving the sense of touch. The Court also reasoned that the tactile detection of contraband during a lawful pat-down search does not constitute any further invasion of privacy, therefore warrantless seizure was permissible. The Court also concluded that the police officer frisking Dickerson stepped outside the boundaries outlined in Terry v. Ohio which requires a protective pat-down search to involve only what is necessary for the detection of weapons. In fact the officer was already aware that Dickerson's jacket pocket did not contain a weapon, when he detected the cocaine through further tactile investigation.

Montana v. Donald Glenn Imlay

Wed, 07 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-687

Petitioner

Montana

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Donald Glenn Imlay

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 5 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, October 7, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, November 3, 1992

Advocates

Billy B. Miller (on behalf of the Respondent)

Marc Racicot (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Donald Glenn Imlay, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Saudi Arabia v. Nelson Et ux.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-522

Petitioner

Saudi Arabia et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nelson Et ux.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 349 (1993)

Argued

Monday, November 30, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, March 23, 1993

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae supporting the Petitioner)

Paul S. Stevens (on behalf of the Respondents)

Everett C. Johnson, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Saudi Arabia, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1330

None

Mertens v. Hewitt Associates

Mon, 22 Feb 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1671

Petitioner

Mertens et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hewitt Associates

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 248 (1993)

Argued

Monday, February 22, 1993

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1993

Advocates

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

Alfred H. Sigman (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Steven H. Frankel (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hewitt Associates, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Nixon v. United States

Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Office of Walter Nixon, Souther District Court of MS

245 East Capitol Street Jacksonville MS 39201

Jacksonville, MS 39201

United States

32° 17' 58.9308" N, 90° 11' 3.9804" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-740

Petitioner

Nixon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 224 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, October 14, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, January 13, 1993

Advocates

Kenneth W. Starr (Argued the cause for the respondents)

David Overlock Stewart (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Walter Nixon, a Federal District Judge, was convicted of a felony, making false statements to a grand jury. The House of Representatives voted three articles of impeachment; impeachment in the Senate followed. In accordance with Senate Rule XI, a Senate committee heard the evidence and reported its findings. The full Senate convicted Nixon and sought to remove him from office. Nixon challenged Senate Rule XI in federal court on the ground that the rule violated the impeachment clause of the Constitution, which declares that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." The lower courts deemed the issue nonjusticiable and declined to intervene in the dispute.

Question

Is Nixon's claim -- that Senate Rule XI violates the Impeachment Trial Clause -- justiciable, i.e., appropriate for judicial resolution?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 6

No. A unanimous Court held that the question of whether or not the Senate rule violated the U.S. Constitution was nonjusticiable since the Impeachment clause expressly granted that the "Senate shall have sole Power to try any impeachments." The clause laid out specific regulations that were to be followed and as long as those guidelines were observed the courts would not rule upon the validity of other Senate procedures regarding impeachments. Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed that while the Supreme Court was the "ultimate intrepreter of the Constitution," a matter would be deemed nonjusticiable when there was "a constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department."

Smith v. United States

Mon, 07 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1538

Petitioner

Smith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 197 (1993)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1992

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1993

Advocates

David J. Bederman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Christopher J. Wright (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Tort Claims, or Alien Tort Statute

None

Fex v. Michigan

Tue, 08 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-7873

Petitioner

Fex

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Michigan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 43 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, December 8, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1993

Advocates

John B. Payne, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

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

Jerrold Schrotenboer (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Padilla

Wed, 24 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-207

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Padilla et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 77 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, March 24, 1993

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1993

Advocates

William C. Bryson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Walter B. Nash, III (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Conroy v. Aniskoff

Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1353

Petitioner

Conroy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aniskoff et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 511 (1993)

Argued

Monday, January 11, 1993

Decided

Wednesday, March 31, 1993

Advocates

Kevin M. Cuddy (on behalf of the Respondents)

Robert H. Klonoff (on behalf of the Petitioner)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Conroy, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 50 U.S.C. 525

None

Granite State Insurance Company v. Tandy Corporation

Tue, 23 Feb 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-2086

Petitioner

Granite State Insurance Company

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tandy Corporation

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 1026 (1993)

Granted

Monday, October 5, 1992

Argued

Tuesday, February 23, 1993

Decided

Monday, April 12, 1993

Advocates

Lynne A. Liberato (on behalf of the Respondent)

Ann E. Webb (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Harper v. Virginia Department Of Taxation

Wed, 02 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-794

Petitioner

Harper et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Virginia Department Of Taxation

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 86 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, December 2, 1992

Decided

Friday, June 18, 1993

Advocates

Michael J. Kator (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Gail Starling Marshall (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Withrow v. Williams

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

Location

Eastern District Court of Michigan

231 W. Lafayette Blvd. Detroit MI 48226

Detroit, MI 48226

United States

42° 19' 49.3356" N, 83° 2' 58.2432" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1030

Petitioner

Withrow

Respondent

Williams

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 680 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, November 3, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, April 21, 1993

Advocates

Jeffrey Caminsky (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John G. Roberts, Jr. (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Seth P. Waxman (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

During his murder case, Robert Williams argued that statements he had made to police should be excluded. Some of those statements had been made before he was given his Miranda warnings and others, while made after the Miranda warnings had been given, were the direct product of those earlier, un- Mirandized statements and should also be excluded, he argued. The state trial court (and subsequently the appeals court) disagreed, and Williams was convicted.

Williams filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal District Court, arguing only that the claims made before the Miranda warnings were given should have been excluded. The court agreed but went further, ruling that the statements made after the Miranda warnings were inadmissible as well because they were the products of the earlier, un-Mirandized statements. On appeal, the state argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, which barred federal habeas corpus review of Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure claims when the state had already given defendants a fair chance to raise such claims in state court, should also apply to questions regarding Fifth Amendment claims stemming from a failure to give Miranda warnings in a timely manner. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's grant of the petition, however, rejecting the state's argument.

Question

Does the Supreme Court's ruling in Stone v. Powell that federal habeas corpus review does not cover Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure claims when defendants have already been given a fair chance to argue those claims in state court also apply to Fifth Amendment claims stemming from the withholding of Miranda warnings?

Conclusion

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

No. In an opinion written by Justice David H. Souter, the Supreme Court held that the decision in Stone had been one of prudence rather than one of jurisdiction. In Stone, the Court had decided against using the "exclusionary rule" in federal habeas cases dealing with unreasonable searches and seizures (the exclusionary rule prevents evidence discovered as the result of an unconstitutional search from being introduced in Court). The Court's decision had been based on an expectation that, even in the unlikely case that a state court had erred in its consideration of the constitutionality of a given search, that procedural error was not likely to produce a wrongful conviction. In Fifth Amendment involuntary testimony cases, though, it was possible that a suspect would given false statements about his own guilt because of confusion or fear. The question was not merely a procedural one, therefore, and the prudential concerns of Stone did not apply.

Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1043

Petitioner

Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc., et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 49 (1993)

Argued

Monday, November 2, 1992

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1993

Advocates

Patrick J. Coyne (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Andrew J. Pincus (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Helling v. McKinney

Wed, 13 Jan 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1958

Petitioner

Helling

Respondent

McKinney

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 25 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, January 13, 1993

Decided

Friday, June 18, 1993

Advocates

Frankie Sue Del Papa (Argued the case for the petitioners)

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

Cornish F. Hitchcock (Argued the case for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

William McKinney, a Nevada state prisoner, sued his warden and several other prison officials for violating his Eighth Amendment rights by subjecting him to unhealthy levels of second-hand smoke. McKinney shared a cell with a man who smoked five packs of cigarettes a day. He claimed that his health - both current and future - was being harmed by the smoke, and that the prison officials were "deliberately indifferent" to the risk in violation of the Supreme Court's decision in Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294. After a federal magistrate ruled that he did not have an Eighth Amendment right to a smoke- free environment and that he had failed to prove any "serious medical needs," the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that he should have been given another opportunity to prove that the smoke levels were sufficient to constitute an unreasonable danger to his future health.

Question

May an inmate sue to prove that his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment has been violated by prison officials who act with "deliberate indifference" to the future health risks associated with second-hand smoke?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that McKinney's suit stated a reasonable claim that, if proven, could be grounds for relief under the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Justice Byron White, in the majority opinion, rejected the government's argument that the "deliberate indifference" test established by the Court in Wilson (which held that withholding medical care from prisoners only violated the Eighth Amendment if it was done with "deliberate indifference" to serious health risks) only applied to current medical conditions. If McKinney could prove that the second-hand smoke posed a serious threat to his future health and that the prison officials had deliberately ignored that threat, White wrote, McKinney would be entitled to relief.

United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co., T/A Power 94

Wed, 21 Apr 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-486

Petitioner

United States et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Edge Broadcasting Co., T/A Power 94

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 418 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, April 21, 1993

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1993

Advocates

Conrad Moss Shumadine (on behalf of the Respondent)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Communication Act of 1934

None

Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

Mon, 29 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-466

Petitioner

Brooke Group Ltd.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 209 (1993)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1993

Advocates

Robert H. Bork (on behalf of the Respondent)

Phillip Areeda (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Robinson-Patman

None

Shalala, Secretary Of Health And Human Services v. Schaefer

Wed, 31 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-311

Petitioner

Shalala, Secretary Of Health And Human Services

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Schaefer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 292 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, March 31, 1993

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 1993

Advocates

William K. Kelley (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Randall J. Fuller (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Schaefer, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Access to Justice

None

Building & Construction Trades Council Of The Metropolitan District v. Associated Builders & Contractors Of Massachusetts/ Rhode Island, Inc.

Wed, 09 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-261

Petitioner

Building & Construction Trades Council Of The Metropolitan District

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Associated Builders & Contractors Of Massachusetts/ Rhode Island, Inc., et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority v. Associated Builders & Contractors of Massachusetts/Rhode Island, Inc., No. 91-274

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 218 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, December 9, 1992

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1993

Advocates

Maurice Baskin (on behalf of the Respondents)

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

Charles Fried (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Building & Construction Trades Council Of The Metropolitan District, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Church Of Scientology Of California v. United States

Tue, 06 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-946

Petitioner

Church Of Scientology Of California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 9 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, October 6, 1992

Decided

Monday, November 16, 1992

Advocates

Eric M. Lieberman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Nobelman Et Ux. v. American Savings Bank

Mon, 19 Apr 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-641

Petitioner

Nobelman Et Ux.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

American Savings Bank et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 324 (1993)

Argued

Monday, April 19, 1993

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1993

Advocates

Philip Palmer (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Michael J. Schroeder (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Reno, Attorney General v. Catholic Social Services, Inc.

Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1826

Petitioner

Reno, Attorney General, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Catholic Social Services, Inc., et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 43 (1993)

Argued

Monday, January 11, 1993

Decided

Friday, June 18, 1993

Advocates

Ronald J. Mann (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Ralph S. Abascal (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Commissioner Of Internal Revenue v. Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc.

Mon, 22 Feb 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1677

Petitioner

Commissioner Of Internal Revenue

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 152 (1993)

Argued

Monday, February 22, 1993

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1993

Advocates

Christopher J. Wright (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Raymond P. Wexler (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Alexander v. United States

Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Location

City of Minneapolis

300 South Fourth Street Minneapolis MN 55415

Minneapolis, MN 55415

United States

44° 58' 41.6388" N, 93° 15' 52.9236" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1526

Petitioner

Ferris Alexander

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 544 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, January 12, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1993

Advocates

Kenneth W. Starr (on behalf of the Respondent)

John H. Weston (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Ferris Alexander was the owner of a chain of stores and theaters in Minnesota that distributed sexually explicit media. He was charged with violating federal obscenity laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The federal District Court in Minnesota found him guilty of both charges. The court ordered him to forfeit his businesses, sentenced him to a six-year prison term, and fined him $100,000.

Alexander appealed, claiming that the confiscation of his stores for his dealings in obscene material amounted to 'prior restraint' on his subsequent distribution of adult materials, and therefore violated his First Amendment rights. He also claimed that the seizure of his business violated his Eighth Amendment protection against excessive fines. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment on the First Amendment claim, and declined to review the Eighth Amendment claim on the ground that no sentence less severe than life imprisonment without parole could justify an Eighth Amendment review.

Question

Does property forfeiture under RICO as punishment for the distribution of obscene materials constitute 'prior restraint' on speech in violation of the First Amendment?
Does the forfeiture of a business as punishment for the sale of obscene media constitute an 'excessive fine'?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Prohibition of Excessive Fines

No and undecided. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for a 5-4 majority that the application of RICO in Alexander's case was neither a 'prior restraint' on speech, nor a criminalization of speech typically protected under the Constitution. His sentence established no conditions on his behavior after its completion; once he paid the fine, surrendered his business and went to prison, he could theoretically distribute adult media without prejudice from the government. "To accept petitioner's argument," Rehnquist wrote, "would virtually obliterate the distinction [...] between prior restraints and subsequent punishments."

In a separate and unanimous vote, the Court ruled that the forfeiture did in fact merit Eighth Amendment review. The case was returned to the Eighth Circuit for an analysis under the Excessive Fines Clause.

St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks

Tue, 20 Apr 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-602

Petitioner

St. Mary's Honor Center et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hicks

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 502 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, April 20, 1993

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1993

Advocates

Charles R. Oldham (on behalf of the Respondent)

Edward C. DuMont (on behalf of the United States and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as amici curiae, supporting Respondent)

Gary L. Gardner (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for St. Mary's Honor Center, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Delaware v. New York

Wed, 09 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

111 ORIG

Plaintiff

Delaware

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

New York

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 490 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, December 9, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, March 30, 1993

Advocates

Jerry Boone (on behalf of the Defendant)

Bernard Nash (in support of Report of Special Master)

Dennis G. Lyons (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lincoln, Acting Director, Indian Health Service v. Vigil

Wed, 03 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1833

Petitioner

Lincoln, Acting Director, Indian Health Service, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Vigil et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 182 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, March 3, 1993

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1993

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Joel R. Jasperse (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Lincoln, Acting Director, Indian Health Service, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Administrative Procedure, or Administrative Orders Review

None

Zafiro v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-6824

Petitioner

Zafiro et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 534 (1993)

Argued

Monday, November 2, 1992

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1993

Advocates

Kenneth L. Cunniff (on behalf of the Petitioners)

John F. Manning (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: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Newark Morning Ledger Co., As Successor To The Herald Co. v. United States

Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1135

Petitioner

Newark Morning Ledger Co., As Successor To The Herald Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 546 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, April 20, 1993

Advocates

Robert H. Bork (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Newark Morning Ledger Co., As Successor To The Herald Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Darby v. Cisneros, Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development

Mon, 22 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-2045

Petitioner

Darby et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cisneros, Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 137 (1993)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1993

Advocates

James A. Feldman (on behalf of the Respondents)

Steven D. Gordon (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Smith v. United States

Tue, 23 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-8674

Petitioner

Smith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 223 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, March 23, 1993

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1993

Advocates

Gary Kollin (By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Thomas G. Hungar (Argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

John Angus Smith offered to trade an automatic weapon, a MAC-10, to an undercover officer for cocaine. Subsequently, he was charged with numerous firearm and drug trafficking offenses. Federal law imposes mandatory sentence enhancement penalties, specifically 30 years for a "machinegun", if a defendant "during and in relation to . . . [a] drug trafficking crime[,] uses . . . a firearm." A jury convicted Smith on all counts, which triggered the sentence enhancement. On appeal, Smith argued that the federal penalty for using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense covers only situations in which the firearm is used as a weapon, not as a medium of exchange. The Court of Appeals disagreed. It held that the plain language of the penalty does not require that a firearm be used as a weapon, but that it applies to any use of a gun that facilitates, in any fashion, the perpetration of a drug offense.

Question

Does trading a gun for drugs make a convicted defendant eligible for sentence enhancement under a federal law, which requires such treatment if the defendant "during and in relation to . . . [a] drug trafficking crime[,] uses . . . a firearm?"

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 924

Yes. In a 6-3 decision, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court ruled that a criminal who trades his or her firearm for drugs "uses" it "during and in relation to . . . [a] drug trafficking crime," which is within the bounds of the sentence enhancement. Justice O'Connor wrote that Congress intended to make the word "use" as broad as possible when it wrote the law. The law does not require proof that a defendant used the gun as a weapon.

United States National Bank Of Oregon v. Independent Insurance Agents Of America, Inc.

Mon, 19 Apr 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-484

Petitioner

United States National Bank Of Oregon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Independent Insurance Agents Of America, Inc., et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 92-507

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 439 (1993)

Argued

Monday, April 19, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1993

Advocates

Ann Mary Kappler (on behalf of the Respondent)

Christopher J. Wright (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States National Bank Of Oregon, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 92

None

Growe, Secretary Of State Of Minnesota v. Emison

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1420

Appellee

Emison et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Growe, Secretary Of State Of Minnesota, et al.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 25 (1993)

Argued

Monday, November 2, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1993

Advocates

John R. Tunheim (on behalf of the Appellants)

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

Bruce Donald Willis (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Growe, Secretary Of State Of Minnesota, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

None

Parke, Warden v. Raley

Mon, 05 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-719

Petitioner

Parke, Warden

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Raley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 20 (1992)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, December 1, 1992

Advocates

J. Gregory Clare (on behalf of the Respondent)

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

Ian G. Sonego (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Dunnigan

Wed, 02 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1300

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dunnigan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 87 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, December 2, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1993

Advocates

Brent E. Beveridge (on behalf of the Respondent)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. App.

None

Cisneros, Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development v. Alpine Ridge Group

Tue, 30 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-551

Petitioner

Cisneros, Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alpine Ridge Group et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 10 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, March 30, 1993

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1993

Advocates

Michael R. Dreeben (or behalf of the Petitioners)

Warren J. Daheim (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Cisneros, Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 103 Stat. 205

None

Nebraska v. Wyoming

Wed, 13 Jan 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

108 ORIG

Plaintiff

Nebraska

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Wyoming et al.

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 584 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, January 13, 1993

Decided

Tuesday, April 20, 1993

Advocates

Dennis C. Cook (on behalf of the State of Wyoming)

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of the United States)

Gale Norton (on behalf of the State of Colorado)

Richard A. Simms (on behalf of the State of Nebraska)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States Department Of Justice v. Landano

Wed, 24 Feb 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-2054

Petitioner

United States Department Of Justice et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Landano

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 165 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, February 24, 1993

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1993

Advocates

Neil Marc Mullin (on behalf of the Respondent)

John F. Daly (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Landano, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

United States v. Texas

Mon, 01 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1729

Petitioner

United States et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Texas et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 529 (1993)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1993

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1993

Advocates

James C. Todd (on behalf of the Respondents)

Thomas G. Hungar (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 31 U.S.C. 3701

None

South Dakota v. Bourland, Individually And As Chairman Of The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

Tue, 02 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-2051

Petitioner

South Dakota

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bourland, Individually And As Chairman Of The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 679 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, March 2, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1993

Advocates

Mark W. Barnett (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Brian Stuart Koukoutchos (on behalf of the Respondents)

James A. Feldman (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for South Dakota, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 58 Stat. 887

None

Txo Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.

Wed, 31 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-479

Petitioner

Txo Production Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alliance Resources Corp. et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 443 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, March 31, 1993

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1993

Advocates

Laurence H. Tribe (on behalf of the Respondents)

Carter G. Phillips (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Alliance Resources Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Reves v. Ernst & Young

Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-886

Petitioner

Reves et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ernst & Young

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 170 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, March 3, 1993

Advocates

Gary M. Elden (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Kathryn A. Oberly (on behalf of the Respondent)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Ernst & Young, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

None

Moreau v. Klevenhagen, Sheriff, Harris County, Texas

Mon, 01 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-1

Petitioner

Moreau et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Klevenhagen, Sheriff, Harris County, Texas, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 22 (1993)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1993

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1993

Advocates

Harold M. Streicher (on behalf of the Respondents)

Michael T. Leibig (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Klevenhagen, Sheriff, Harris County, Texas, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Rowland, Former Director, California Department Of Corrections v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council

Tue, 06 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1188

Petitioner

Rowland, Former Director, California Department Of Corrections, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 194 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, October 6, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, January 12, 1993

Advocates

James Ching (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Charles D. Weisselberg (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rowland, Former Director, California Department Of Corrections, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1915

None

Sale, Acting Commissioner, Immigration And Naturalization Service v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc.

Tue, 02 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Location

White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington DC 20500

Washington, DC 20500

United States

38° 53' 51.5796" N, 77° 2' 11.6304" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-344

Petitioner

Chris Sale, Acting Commissioner, Immigration And Naturalization Service, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Haitian Centers Council, Inc., et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 155 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, March 2, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1993

Advocates

Maureen E. Mahoney (Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, on behalf of the Petitioners)

Harold Hongju Koh (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

According to Executive Order No. 12807 signed by President George H. W. Bush in 1992, the Coast Guard was required to force the return of all passengers discovered illegally traveling by sea from Haiti to the United States before reaching its borders without determining whether they qualify as refugees. The Haitian Centers Council, Inc., a collection of organizations representing illegal Haitian aliens and Haitians detained at Guantanamo, requested that the District Court for the Eastern District of New York delay the implementation of the order. The council argued that the order violated section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and Article 33 of the United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees which protect individuals escaping potential prosecution from forced repatriation. The District Court denied the council's request, but the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed.

Question

Is Executive Order No. 12807 a violation of section 243(h) or Article 33?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Sale, Acting Commissioner, Immigration And Naturalization Service, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

No. In a majority opinion authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court observed that Acts of Congress do not generally have application outside of United States territory, unless explicitly noted. And, it found that both section 243(h) and Article 33 are silent regarding extraterritorial application. In fact, the language of both suggests that only individuals who have already arrived on United States soil are protected, and their use throughout history confirms this interpretation. Thus, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Wisconsin v. Mitchell

Wed, 21 Apr 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Kenosha County Courthouse

912 56th Street Kenosha WI 53140

Kenosha, WI 53140

United States

42° 35' 6.0468" N, 87° 49' 22.3536" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-515

Petitioner

Wisconsin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mitchell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 476 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, April 21, 1993

Decided

Friday, June 11, 1993

Advocates

James E. Doyle (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Michael R. Dreeben (as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioner)

Lynn S. Adelman (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

On October 7, 1989, Todd Mitchell, a young black man, instigated an attack against a young white boy. He was subsequently convicted of aggravated battery in the Circuit Court for Kenosha County. According to Wisconsin statute, Mitchell's sentence was increased, because the court found that he had selected his victim based on race. Mitchell challenged the constitutionality of the increase in his penalty, but the Wisconsin Court of Appeals rejected his claims. However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed.

Question

Did the increase in Mitchell's sentence based on his bigoted motives violate his First Amendment rights?

Conclusion

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

No. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court found that the Wisconsin statute paralleled antidiscrimination laws which had been found to comply with the First Amendment. It also determined that the consequences for the victim and the community tended to be more severe, when the victim of a crime was chosen on account of his or her race. Thus, when the Wisconsin statute increased the sentence for such crimes, it was not punishing the defendant for his or her bigoted beliefs or statements, but rather the predicted ramifications of his or her crime. Finally, the Court concluded that the Wisconsin statute did not violate the right to free speech because the occasion in which an average person's racist comments would be used against him or her in a court of law would arise so rarely that he or she would not feel forced to suppress them.

Herrera v. Collins, Director, Texas Department Of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division

Wed, 07 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-7328

Petitioner

Herrera

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Collins, Director, Texas Department Of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 390 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, October 7, 1992

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1993

Advocates

Talbot D'Alemberte (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Margaret P. Griffey (on behalf of the Respondent)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Collins, Director, Texas Department Of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Deal v. United States

Mon, 01 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-8199

Petitioner

Deal

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 129 (1993)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1993

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1993

Advocates

Miguel A. Estrada (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States)

Dola J. Young (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Between January and April 1990, Thomas Lee Deal committed six bank robberies. In each robbery, he used a gun. Subsequently, Deal was convicted, in a single proceeding, of six counts of carrying and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 USC section 924(c)(1). Section 924(c)(1) prescribes a 5-year prison term for the first such conviction, in addition to the punishment provided for the crime of violence, and requires a 20-year sentence "in the case of [a] second or subsequent conviction under this subsection." The District Court sentenced Deal to 5 years' imprisonment on the first section 924(c)(1) count and to 20 years on each of the five other counts, the terms to run consecutively. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question

Does a criminal's second through sixth convictions under section 924(c)(1) in a single proceeding arise "in the case of his second or subsequent conviction" within the meaning of section 924(c)(1)?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 924

Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that Deal's second through sixth convictions in a single proceeding arose "in the case of his second or subsequent conviction" within the meaning of section 924(c)(1), finding that the statute was not ambiguous. The Court rejected that the rule of lenity applied because Deal's "105-year sentence 'is so glaringly unjust.'" Writing for the court, Justice Scalia said the 105 years sentence for the gun offenses was not unjust "simply because [Deal] managed to evade detection, prosecution and conviction for the first five offenses and was ultimately tried for all six in a single proceeding." Justice Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Harry A. Blackmun joined.

Republic National Bank Of Miami v. United States

Mon, 05 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-767

Petitioner

Republic National Bank Of Miami

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 80 (1992)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1992

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1992

Advocates

Stanley A. Beiley (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 Republic National Bank Of Miami, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 7: Appropriations Clause

None

United States v. Dixon

Wed, 02 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1231

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dixon et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 688 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, December 2, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1993

Advocates

William C. Bryson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James W. Klein (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

Split Vote

None

Rake v. Wade, Trustee

Mon, 22 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-621

Petitioner

Rake et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wade, Trustee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 464 (1993)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1993

Advocates

David W. Carpenter (on behalf of the Petitioners)

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

Lawrence A.G. Johnson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Musick, Peeler & Garrett v. Employers Insurance Of Wausau

Mon, 01 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-34

Petitioner

Musick, Peeler & Garrett

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Employers Insurance Of Wausau

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 286 (1993)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1993

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1993

Advocates

Charles A. Bird (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Theodore B. Olson (on behalf of the Respondents)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Employers Insurance Of Wausau, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Stinson v. United States

Wed, 24 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-8685

Petitioner

Stinson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 36 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, March 24, 1993

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1993

Advocates

William Mallory Kent (on behalf of the Petitioner)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Daubert Et Ux., Individually And As Guardians Ad Litem For Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Tue, 30 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-102

Petitioner

Daubert Et Ux., Individually And As Guardians Ad Litem For Daubert, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 579 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, March 30, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1993

Advocates

Charles Fried (on behalf of the Respondent)

Michael H. Gottesman (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Daubert Et Ux., Individually And As Guardians Ad Litem For Daubert, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Evidence

None

Johnson v. Texas

Mon, 26 Apr 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-5653

Petitioner

Johnson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Texas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 350 (1993)

Argued

Monday, April 26, 1993

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 1993

Advocates

Michael E. Tigar (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Dana E. Parker (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Hill Et ux.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1421

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hill Et ux.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 546 (1993)

Argued

Monday, November 2, 1992

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1993

Advocates

Richard B. Robinson (on behalf of the Respondents)

Kent L. Jones (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Buckley v. Fitzsimmons

Mon, 22 Feb 1993 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-7849

Petitioner

Buckley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fitzsimmons et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 259 (1993)

Argued

Monday, February 22, 1993

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 1993

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondents)

George F. Taylor, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James G. Sotos (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Buckley, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None