Cases by Issue - Comity

Jefferson County v. Acker

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

98-10

Petitioner

Jefferson County

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Acker

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

527 U.S. 423 (1999)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1999

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1999

Advocates

Alan B. Morrison (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Jeffrey M. Sewell (Birmingham, Alabama, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Kent L. Jones (Argued the cause for the United States, supporting the petitioner, as amicus curiae, by special leave of court)

Facts of the Case

Two U.S. District Judges, William M. Acker, Jr., and U. W. Clemon, who maintain their principal offices in Jefferson County, Alabama, resisted payment of a state-approved, county-authorized occupational tax on the ground that it violates the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine. The county instituted collection suits in Alabama small claims court against the judges, who removed the suits to the Federal District Court under the federal officer removal statute. The federal court denied the county's motions to remand and granted summary judgment for the judges, holding the county tax unconstitutional under the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine to the extent that it reached federal judges' compensation. The en banc Court of Appeals affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Jefferson County's initial petition for certiorari and remanded for further consideration of whether the Tax Injunction Act deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. On remand, the Court of Appeals adhered to its prior en banc decision. Certiorari was granted again to consider whether the removal from state court to federal court was unauthorized by the federal officer removal statute, the Tax Injunction Act issue, and the merits of the case.

Question

May Jefferson County impose a "license or privilege tax" upon two U.S. District Judges? Was the dispute properly transferred to the federal district court under the federal officer removal statute? Does the Tax Injunction Act deprive the district court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Jefferson County, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 4 U.S.C. 111

Yes, yes, and no. In an opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that Jefferson County may impose an occupation tax on the U.S. District Judges, for "Jefferson County's tax operates as a nondiscriminatory tax on the judges' compensation, to which the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 consents when it allows States to tax the pay that federal employees receive if the taxation does not discriminate against [that] employee because of the source of the pay or compensation." Further, the Court held that the case was properly removed under the federal officer removal statute because the Jefferson County tax effects the judges' "performance of federal judicial duties in the county and risks interfering with the Federal Judiciary's operation in violation of the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine." The Court also concluded that the Tax Injunction Act did not bar federal-court adjudication of the matter.

Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

96-1971

Petitioner

Rivet

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Regions Bank of Louisiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

522 U.S. 470 (1998)

Argued

Wednesday, January 21, 1998

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1998

Advocates

Charles L. Stern, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondents)

John G. Odom (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

In 1983, a partnership mortgaged its interest in the Louisiana equivalent of a leasehold estate on a parcel of real property in New Orleans to Regions Bank of Louisiana. The partnership then granted a second mortgage to Mary Anna Rivet, Minna Ree Winer, Edmond G. Miranne, and Edmond G. Miranne, Jr. Later, the partnership filed for bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court approved the sale of the estate to the Bank, which sold the property. Rivet filed suit in Louisiana state court, alleging that the transfer of the property without satisfying their rights under the second mortgage violated state law. The Bank removed the action to federal court, contending that federal-question jurisdiction existed because the prior Bankruptcy Court orders extinguished Rivet's rights. Denying Rivet's motion to remand, the District Court granted the Bank summary judgment. In affirming, the Court of Appeals concluded that removal is proper where a plaintiff's state cause of action is completely precluded by a prior federal judgment on a federal question.

Question

May removal to federal court be predicated on a defendant's assertion that a prior federal judgment has disposed of an entire matter and thus bars plaintiffs from later pursuing a state-law-based case?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Rivet, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1441

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that a defense claim of preclusion by reason of a prior federal judgment provides no basis for removal and emphasized that the claim is properly made in state proceedings. Differing the case from a removable case governed by a preemptive federal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that the "prior federal judgment does not transform the plaintiff's state-law claims into federal claims but rather extinguishes them altogether."

Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

95-244

Petitioner

Quackenbush

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Allstate Insurance

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

517 U.S. 706 (1996)

Argued

Tuesday, February 20, 1996

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1996

Advocates

Karl L. Rubinstein (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Donald Francis Donovan (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

The California Insurance Commissioner filed a state court action against Allstate Insurance Co. seeking damages for Allstate's alleged breach of reinsurance agreements in an effort to gather the assets of the defunct Mission Insurance companies. Allstate removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds and filed a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. The Commissioner sought to remand the case to state court, arguing that the court should abstain from hearing the case, under Burford v. Sun Oil Co., because its resolution might interfere with California's regulation of insurance insolvencies and liquidations. The District Court agreed, concluded that an abstention was appropriate, and remanded the case to state court without ruling on Allstate's arbitration motion. After determining the appealability of the District Court's remand order, the Court of Appeals vacated the decision and ordered the case sent to arbitration. The court held that abstention was inappropriate in this damages action because a Burford abstention is limited to equitable actions.

Question

Is an abstention-based remand order appealable as a final order? Can the abstention doctrine recognized in Burford v. Sun Oil Co. be applied in a suit for damages?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Allstate Insurance, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

Yes and no. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that an abstention-based remand order is appealable because the "remand order here falls within that narrow class of collateral orders that are immediately appealable." Further, the Court held that the "federal courts have the power to dismiss or remand cases based on abstention principles only where the relief sought is equitable or otherwise discretionary," and because "this was a damages action, the District Court's remand order was an unwarranted application of the Burford doctrine." Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy wrote concurring opinions.

Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Epstein

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:29 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

94-1809

Petitioner

Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Epstein

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

516 U.S. 367 (1996)

Argued

Monday, November 27, 1995

Decided

Tuesday, February 27, 1996

Advocates

Henry P. Monaghan (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Barry R. Ostrager (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

In 1990, Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. made a tender offer for the common stock of MCA, Inc., a Delaware corporation, which resulted in Matsushita's acquisition of MCA. Subsequently, two lawsuits followed. First, a class action filed in Delaware, alleged that, among other things, Matsushita and MCA conspired violating Delaware law. The second suit, filed in federal court, alleged that Matsushita's tender offer violated certain Securities and Exchange Commission Rules promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the federal courts in such suits. After Matsushita won the federal case, and while it was on appeal, the parties to the state action reached a settlement. The class-action settlement stated that class members who did not opt out of the class would waive all claims in connection with the tender offer, including those asserted in the federal action. As members of both state and federal plaintiff classes, who neither opted out of the settlement class nor appeared to contest the settlement or the representation of the class, pursued the federal appeal, Matsushita argued that the Delaware judgment was a bar to further prosecution under the Full Faith and Credit Act.

Question

May a federal court refuse to grant full faith and credit to a state-court judgment approving a class-action settlement simply because the settlement releases claims within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1738

No. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that, absent a partial repeal of the Full Faith and Credit Act by another federal statute, a federal court must give the judgment the same effect that it would have in the courts of the State in which it was rendered. Writing for the court, Justice Thomas said the federal Full Faith and Credit Act "is generally applicable in cases in which the state-court judgment at issue incorporates a class-action settlement releasing claims solely within the jurisdiction of the federal courts." Justice John Paul Stevens penned an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a concurring and dissenting opinion, and was joined in part by Justice David H. Souter.

Mcneil v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:52:10 +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

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

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:04 +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

Darby v. Cisneros, Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:07 +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

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

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:02 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-367

Petitioner

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

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Richards et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 689 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, March 31, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1992

Advocates

Richard Lynn Ducote (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Paul S. Weidenfeld (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mccarthy v. Madigan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-6861

Petitioner

Mccarthy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Madigan et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 140 (1992)

Argued

Monday, December 9, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, March 4, 1992

Advocates

Maureen E. Mahoney (on behalf of the Respondents)

Paul M. Smith (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Franchise Tax Board Of California v. Alcan Aluminium

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:05 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1400

Petitioner

Franchise Tax Board Of California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alcan Aluminium

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 331 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, November 1, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, January 10, 1990

Advocates

Lawrence A. Salibra, II (on behalf of the Respondent)

Timothy G. Laddish (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Franchise Tax Board Of California, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. New Orleans

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:13 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-348

Petitioner

New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New Orleans

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 350 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, April 25, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1989

Advocates

Clinton A. Vince (on behalf of Respondents)

Richard J. Lazarus (as amici curiae, supporting Petitioner)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Fslic

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-996

Petitioner

Coit Independence Joint Venture

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fslic

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 561 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, November 1, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, March 21, 1989

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of the Respondent)

Robert E. Goodfriend (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Coit Independence Joint Venture, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 1464

None

Deakins v. Monaghan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-890

Petitioner

Deakins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Monaghan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 193 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, October 14, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, January 12, 1988

Advocates

Larry R. Etzweiler (on behalf of the petitioners)

Edward N. Fitzpatrick (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1798

Appellee

Texaco Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Pennzoil Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 1 (1987)

Argued

Monday, January 12, 1987

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1987

Advocates

David Boies (on behalf of Appellee)

Laurence H. Tribe (on behalf of Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Pennzoil Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. Laplante

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1589

Petitioner

Iowa Mutual Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Laplante

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 9 (1987)

Argued

Monday, December 1, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1987

Advocates

Joe R. Bottomly (on behalf of the respondent)

Maxon R. Davis (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Iowa Mutual Ins. Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1322

None

Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1616

Petitioner

Parsons Steel, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

First Alabama Bank

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

474 U.S. 518 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, December 3, 1985

Decided

Monday, January 27, 1986

Advocates

M. Roland Nachman, Jr. (on behalf of the respondents)

Frank M. Wilson (on behalf of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Parsons Steel, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1738

None

Marrese v. American Academy Of Ortho. Surgeons

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1452

Petitioner

Marrese

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

American Academy Of Ortho. Surgeons

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 373 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, December 4, 1984

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1985

Advocates

Charles W. Murdock (on behalf of Illinois, et al., as amicus curiae in support of petitioners)

Michael T. Sawyier (on behalf of petitioners)

D. Kendall Griffith (on behalf of respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Marrese, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1738

None

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:17 +0000

Location

Hawaii Public Housing Authority

1002 North School Street Honolulu HI 96817

Honolulu, HI 96817

United States

21° 19' 40.5372" N, 157° 51' 48.816" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-141

Petitioner

Midkiff

Respondent

Hawaii Housing Authority

Consolidation

No. 83-236

No. 83-283

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 229 (1984)

Argued

Monday, March 26, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, May 30, 1984

Advocates

Laurence H. Tribe (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Clinton R. Ashford (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

After extensive hearings in the mid-1960s, the Hawaii legislature discovered that while Federal and State governments owned nearly 49 percent of the land in Hawaii, another 47 percent was owned by only 72 private landowners. To combat this concentration of ownership, the legislature enacted the Land Reform Act of 1967. The Act adopted a method of redistribution in which title in real property could be taken from lessors and transferred to lessees. Frank E. Midkiff, a landholder, challenged the Act.

Question

Did the Land Reform Act of 1967 violate the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Hawaii Housing Authority, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Public Use Clause did not preclude Hawaii from taking title in real property, with just compensation, for the purpose of reducing the concentration of ownership. Noting that Hawaii's statute was rationally related to a conceivable public purpose, the Court argued that "debates over the wisdom of takings" were best carried out by legislatures, not by federal courts. The Court also held that the fact that the property taken by eminent domain was transferred to private beneficiaries did not condemn the law to having a solely private purpose.

Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-2147

Petitioner

Arizona

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

San Carlos Apache Tribe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 81-2188

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

463 U.S. 545 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, March 23, 1983

Decided

Friday, July 1, 1983

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (on behalf of Respondent United States)

Jon L. Kyl (on behalf of the Petitioners in No. 81-2147)

Simon K. Rifkind (on behalf of Respondent Arizona Indian Tribes)

Robert S. Pelcyger (on behalf of the Respondent Montana Indian Tribes)

Michael T. Greely (on behalf of the Petitioners in No. 81-2188)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Arizona, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 43 U.S.C. 666

None

Moses H. Cone Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1203

Petitioner

Moses H. Cone Hospital

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mercury Constr. Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 1 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, November 2, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1983

Advocates

Jack W. Floyd (on behalf of Petitioner)

A.H. Gaede, Jr. (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mercury Constr. Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

California v. Grace Brethren Church

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:45 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-31

Petitioner

Grace Brethren Church

Respondent

California

Consolidation

No. 81-228

No. 81-455

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 393 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, March 30, 1982

Decided

Friday, June 18, 1982

Advocates

William B. Ball (on behalf of Grace Brethren Church)

Jeffrey M. Vesely (on behalf of the State of California)

Harriet S. Shapiro (on behalf of the United States)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for California, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1341

None

Fair Assessment In Real Estate Assn. v. Mcnary

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:31 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-427

Petitioner

Fair Assessment In Real Estate Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mcnary

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 100 (1981)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, December 1, 1981

Advocates

David J. Newburger (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Thomas W. Wehrle (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Rosewell v. Lasalle National Bank

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1157

Petitioner

Rosewell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lasalle National Bank

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 503 (1981)

Argued

Monday, November 10, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1981

Advocates

Henry A. Hauser (on behalf of the Petitioners)

James L. Fox (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rosewell, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1341

None

County Of Imperial v. Munoz

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1003

Petitioner

County Of Imperial

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Munoz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 54 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 15, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, December 2, 1980

Advocates

William H. Kronberger, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondents)

James H. Harmon (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for County Of Imperial, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2283

None

Moore v. Sims

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-6

Appellee

Sims

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Moore

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 415 (1979)

Argued

Monday, February 26, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Moore, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:14 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-693

Petitioner

Will

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Calvert Fire Ins. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 655 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, April 19, 1978

Decided

Friday, June 23, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Trainor v. Hernandez

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1407

Appellee

Hernandez

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Trainor

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 434 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, January 18, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Trainor, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Tully v. Griffin, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:25 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-831

Appellee

Griffin, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Tully

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 68 (1976)

Argued

Monday, October 4, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, November 9, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Griffin, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1341

None

Carey v. Sugar

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:38 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-858

Appellee

Sugar

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Carey

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 74-859

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 73 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, January 20, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. U.S.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-940

Petitioner

Colorado River Water Cons. Dist.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 74-949

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 800 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Colorado River Water Cons. Dist., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 43 U.S.C. 666

None

Lehman Brothers v. Schein

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-439

Petitioner

Lehman Brothers

Respondent

Schein

Consolidation

No. 73-440

No. 73-495

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 386 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, March 19, 1974

Decided

Monday, April 29, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:09:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1566

Petitioner

Granny Goose Foods, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Teamsters

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 423 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, January 8, 1974

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Teamsters, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1450

None

Gibson v. Berryhill

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-653

Petitioner

Berryhill

Respondent

Gibson

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 564 (1973)

Argued

January 9-10, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 7, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Gibson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2283

None

Grubbs v. General Electric Credit Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-257

Petitioner

Grubbs

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

General Electric Credit Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 699 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, March 23, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, April 18, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lake Carriers' Assn. v. Macmullan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-422

Petitioner

Macmullan

Respondent

Lake Carriers' Assn.

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 498 (1972)

Argued

March 22-23, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, May 30, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Lake Carriers' Assn., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2201

None

Lynch v. Household Finance Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5058

Appellee

Household Finance Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lynch

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 538 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, December 7, 1971

Decided

Thursday, March 23, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Lynch, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1343

None

Askew v. Hargrave

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

573

Petitioner

Hargrave

Respondent

Askew

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 476 (1971)

Argued

February 23-24, 1971

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Askew, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Wisconsin v. Constantineau

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Constantineau

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Wisconsin

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 433 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, December 10, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, January 19, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Engineers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

477

Petitioner

Atlantic C. L. R. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Engineers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

398 U.S. 281 (1970)

Argued

March 2-3, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2283

None

Reetz v. Bozanich

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

185

Appellee

Bozanich

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Reetz

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

397 U.S. 82 (1970)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1970

Decided

Wednesday, February 25, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Reetz, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Willingham v. Morgan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

228

Petitioner

Willingham

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Morgan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 402 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, April 22, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Willingham, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1442

None

England v. Medical Examiners

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Medical Examiners

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

England

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 411 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, October 15, 1963

Decided

Monday, January 13, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for England, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Best v. Humboldt Mining Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:18 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Best

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Humboldt Mining Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

371 U.S. 334 (1963)

Argued

Monday, December 10, 1962

Decided

Monday, January 14, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Best, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

United Gas Co. v. Ideal Cement Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Ideal Cement Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United Gas Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 134 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, December 13, 1961

Decided

Monday, March 19, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United Gas Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1254

None

Metlakatla Indians v. Egan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

326

Appellee

Egan

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Metlakatla Indians

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 327

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

363 U.S. 555 (1960)

Argued

Wednesday, May 18, 1960

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Metlakatla Indians, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Martin v. Creasy

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

157

Appellee

Creasy

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Martin

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

360 U.S. 219 (1959)

Argued

Thursday, April 2, 1959

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Martin, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Allegheny County v. Mashuda Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

347

Petitioner

Allegheny County

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mashuda Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

360 U.S. 185 (1959)

Argued

Thursday, April 2, 1959

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mashuda Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Louisiana P. & L. Co. v. Thibodaux City

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

398

Petitioner

Louisiana P. & L. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thibodaux City

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

360 U.S. 25 (1959)

Argued

Thursday, April 2, 1959

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Louisiana P. & L. Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Leiter Minerals, Inc., v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:28:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Leiter Minerals, Inc.,

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1956-1957)

Decided By

Warren Court (1956-1957)

Opinion

352 U.S. 220 (1957)

Argued

November 6-7, 1956

Decided

Monday, January 14, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2283

None

Doud v. Hodge

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

129

Appellee

Hodge

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Doud

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

350 U.S. 485 (1956)

Argued

Wednesday, February 29, 1956

Decided

Monday, March 26, 1956

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Doud, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1331

None