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.