Cases by Issue - Mootness

City News & Novelty v. Waukesha

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

99-1680

Petitioner

City News & Novelty

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Waukesha

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

531 U.S. 278 (2001)

Argued

Tuesday, November 28, 2000

Decided

Wednesday, January 17, 2001

Advocates

Curt Meitz (Argued the cause for the respondent)

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

Jeff S. Olson (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

The City of Waukesha, Wisconsin requires sellers of sexually explicit materials to obtain and annually renew adult business licenses. City News and Novelty, Inc. (City News), owned and operated an adult-oriented shop in Waukesha. City News had first obtained a license in 1989. In 1995, City News applied for a renewal of its license. Waukesha's Common Council denied the application. The Council found that City News had violated Waukesha ordinances by permitting minors to loiter on the premises, failing to maintain an unobstructed view of booths in the store, and allowing patrons to engage in sexual activity inside the booths. Waukesha's refusal to renew City News's license was upheld in administrative proceedings and on judicial review in the state courts. Among other questions raised in its petition for certiorari, City News asked the Court to "resolve...whether the guarantee of prompt judicial review that must accompany [an adult business] licensing scheme means a prompt judicial determination or simply the right to promptly file for judicial review."

Question

Does the guarantee of prompt judicial review that must accompany an adult business-licensing scheme mean a prompt judicial determination?

Conclusion

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

The Court did not answer the question. In a unanimous opinion deliver by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari because City News was not properly situated to raise the question on which the Court granted review. The city of Waukesha had argued the case was moot after City News decided to withdraw its renewal application and close its business upon the city's grant of a license to another business, with which the Court agreed. "We do not doubt that an ongoing adult enterprise facing loss of its license to do business may allege First Amendment injuries. Such an establishment's typical concern, however, is not the speed of court proceedings, but the availability of a stay of adverse action during the pendency of judicial review, however long that review takes," wrote Justice Ginsburg for the Court.

Erie v. Pap's A. M.

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:30 +0000

Location

Erie City Council

626 State St Erie PA 16501

Erie, PA 16501

United States

42° 7' 40.8" N, 80° 5' 7.44" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

98-1161

Petitioner

Erie

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pap's A. M.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

529 U.S. 277 (2000)

Argued

Wednesday, November 10, 1999

Decided

Wednesday, March 29, 2000

Advocates

Gregory A. Karle (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

John H. Weston (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

"Kandyland," operated by Pap's A. M. in Erie PA, featured totally nude female erotic dancing. The city council enacted an ordinance making it an offense to knowingly or intentionally appear in public in a "state of nudity," To comply with the ordinance, dancers had to wear, at a minimum, "pasties" and a "G-string." Pap's filed suit against Erie, seeking a permanent injunction against the ordinance's enforcement. The Court of Common Pleas struck down the ordinance as unconstitutional, but the Commonwealth Court reversed. In reversing, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the ordinance's public nudity sections violated Pap's right to freedom of expression as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court explained that, although one purpose of the ordinance was to combat negative secondary effects, there was also an unmentioned purpose to "impact negatively on the erotic message of the dance." Additionally, because the ordinance was not content neutral, the court subjected it to strict scrutiny and found that it failed the narrow tailoring requirement of such a test. After the U.S Supreme Court granted certiorari, Pap's filed a motion to dismiss the case as moot, noting that Kandyland no longer operated as a nude dancing club, and that Pap's did not operate such a club at any other location. The Court denied the motion.

Question

Does Erie, Pennsylvania's public indecency ordinance, as applied to prohibit nude dancing, violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free expression?

Conclusion

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

No. In an opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that Erie's public indecency ordinance did not violate any cognizable First Amendment protections of expressive conduct. In splintered voting that did not yield a majority opinion, Justice O'Connor wrote for the Court that, "[e]ven if Erie's public nudity ban has some minimal effect on the erotic message by muting that portion of the expression that occurs when the last stitch is dropped, the dancers... are free to perform wearing pasties and G-strings." "The requirement... is a minimal restriction in furtherance of the asserted government interests, and the restriction leaves ample capacity to convey the dancers' erotic message."

Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

98-822

Petitioner

Friends of the Earth

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Laidlaw Environmental Services

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

528 U.S. 167 (2000)

Argued

Tuesday, October 12, 1999

Decided

Wednesday, January 12, 2000

Advocates

Donald A. Cockrill (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Jeffrey P. Minear (Argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of court, supporting the petitioners)

Bruce J. Terris (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

After Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. bought a wastewater treatment plant, it was granted a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The permit authorized Laidlaw to discharge treated water and limited pollutants. Laidlaw's discharge of mercury into the North Tyger River repeatedly exceeded the limits set by the permit. Ultimately, Friends of the Earth and others (FOE) filed a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act against Laidlaw, alleging noncompliance with the NPDES permit, seeking injunctive relief and an award of civil penalties. Laidlaw moved for summary judgement on the ground that FOE lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. The District Court denied the motion. Ultimately, the District Court found that Laidlaw violated the mercury discharge limitation. In issuing its judgment, the District Court concluded that a civil penalty of $405,800 would be adequate to forestall future violations, given that Laidlaw would have to reimburse the plaintiffs for a significant amount of legal fees and had itself incurred significant legal expenses. The court declined to order injunctive relief because Laidlaw, after the lawsuit began, had achieved substantial compliance with the terms of its permit. FOE appealed to the amount of the District Court's civil penalty judgment, but did not appeal the denial of declaratory or injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals ordered the case to be dismissed. The appellate court held that the case had become moot once Laidlaw complied with the terms of its permit. The court reasoned that the only remedy currently available to FOE, civil penalties payable to the Government, would not redress any injury FOE had suffered.

Question

Does an environmental group's citizen suit for civil penalties under the Clean Water Act become moot when the defendant, after commencement of the litigation, has come into compliance with its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Friends of the Earth, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water), plus amendments

No. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that a citizen suitor's claim for civil penalties need not be dismissed as moot when the defendant, after commencement of the litigation, has come into compliance with its NPDES permit. "A defendant's voluntary cessation of allegedly unlawful conduct ordinarily does not suffice to moot a case," Justice Ginsburg wrote for the Court. "Congress has found that civil penalties in the Clean Water Act cases do more than promote immediate compliance... they also deter future violations," concluded Justice Ginsburg. The Court also ruled that FOE had standing to bring the suit on behalf on its members.

Mosley v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

97-7213

Petitioner

Mosley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

525 U.S. 120 (1998)

Argued

Wednesday, October 14, 1998

Decided

Tuesday, December 8, 1998

Advocates

Donald J. McCauley (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

David C. Frederick (Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

In 1995, Sylvester Mosley was arrested after robbing two banks in eleven days. At the first bank, Mosley displayed a "HOLD UP" sign and asked the teller "Can I have all your money?" At the second bank, Mosley told the teller "This is a holdup, open your bottom draw and give me all your big bills." Because he merely asked for the money, Mosley asked the trial judge to instruct the jury that it could find him guilty of larceny as a lesser-included offense of robbery. Mosley argued that the federal bank robbery statute, 18 USC 2113(a), requires that the robber take the money "by force or violence, or intimidation." The court denied the motion, finding that Mosley had intimated the tellers. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals found that larceny could not be considered a lesser offense of robbery because an element of larceny is intent and intent is not contained in the robbery definition.

Question

Must jurors be instructed in some bank robbery prosecutions to consider the lesser charge of bank larceny?

Conclusion

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

The Court did not answer the question. In a per curiam opinion, the Court vacated the order granting the writ of certiorari and dismissed the petition. The Court was "advised that [Sylvester Mosley] died in Springfield, Missouri, on November 16, 1998."

Spencer v. Kemna

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

96-7171

Petitioner

Spencer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kemna

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

523 U.S. 1 (1998)

Argued

Wednesday, November 12, 1997

Decided

Tuesday, March 3, 1998

Advocates

John W. Simon (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

James R. Layton (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

In 1990, Randy G. Spencer began serving concurrent three-year sentences for convictions of felony stealing and burglary. In 1992, Spencer was released, but later that year his parole was revoked and he was returned to prison. Seeking to invalidate his parole revocation, Spencer filed unsuccessful habeas petitions in state court. Spencer then filed a federal habeas petition, alleging that he had not received due process in the parole revocation proceedings. In 1993, Spencer was re-released on parole before the District Court addressed the merits of his habeas petition. Subsequently, the court dismissed Spencer's petition as moot. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question

May prison inmates challenge the revocation of their parole after they are re- released on parole?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Kemna, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

No. In a 8-1 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the expiration of Spencer's sentence caused his petition to be moot because it no longer presented an Article III case or controversy. The Court concluded that once a petitioner's sentence has expired he must demonstrate a concrete and continuing injury to maintain suit. Accordingly, the Court rejected that Spencer's asserted injuries established collateral consequences sufficient to state an Article III case or controversy. "The reincarceration that he incurred as a result of that action is now over, and cannot be undone," wrote Justice Scalia. Justice John Paul Stevens filed a dissenting opinion.

Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

95-974

Petitioner

Arizonans for Official English

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arizona

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

520 U.S. 43 (1997)

Argued

Wednesday, December 4, 1996

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1997

Advocates

Barnaby W. Zall (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Robert H. Pohlman (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Maria Kelly F. Yniguez, an Arizona state employee, sued the state and various state officials alleging provisions of the state constitution, which declare English "the official language of the State," and allow state residents and businesses to bring suit to enforce the article, violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Yniguez used both English and Spanish in her work and feared that the article would require her to face discharge or other discipline if she did not refrain from speaking Spanish while serving the state. The District Court dismissed the case against the state because of its Eleventh Amendment immunity, but held the article on English unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals accepted the case after Yniguez resigned and ultimately affirmed the District Court's ruling that the article violated the Free Speech Clause and announced that Yniguez was entitled to damages from the state.

Question

Was a challenge to a state's efforts to make English its official language a justiciable controversy after the state employee who mounted the challenge left her government job?

Conclusion

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

No. In a unanimous decision, announced by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that the dispute was moot due to the previous resignation of Yniguez. The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the article.

United States v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company Of Virginia 516 U.S. 415

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

94-1893

Petitioner

United States et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company Of Virginia et al. 516 U.S. 415

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 94-1900

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

516 U.S. 415 (1996)

Argued

Wednesday, December 6, 1995

Decided

Wednesday, March 27, 1996

Advocates

Laurence H. Tribe (on behalf of the Respondents)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

To prevent "local media monopolies," Section 533(b) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 barred local phone service providers (local exchange carriers or LECs) from directly providing video programming to their local phone service subscribers. The government claimed that because LEC- controlled phone lines could also transmit video signals, allowing LECs to provide video programming would hurt competing cable companies. First, LECs could deny competitors access to their data lines. Second, LECs could offer lower cable prices than competitors by raising the costs of telephone service and using the extra profits to subsidize the costs of cable service.

Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia (Chesapeake) challenged the constitutionality of the statute, pointing out that "video programming" is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. The government argued that the statute's regulation of the cable market had a "content-neutral" objective. The District Court ruled that the statute's restrictions were not "narrowly tailored" to serve the statute's objective. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, adding that the statute did not leave open "ample alternative channels for communication" between LECs and local residents. The Supreme Court consolidated the case with National Cable Television Assn., Inc. v. Bell Atlantic Corp.

Question

Does 47 U.S.C. 533(b), which bars local telephone companies from directly providing video programming to their local phone service subscribers, violate the First Amendment's protection of free speech?

Conclusion

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

Unanswered. After the Court heard oral arguments, the President signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 into law. The Act repealed Section 533(b), allowing LECs to provide local cable service if they complied with a series of regulatory measures. The Court instructed the Fourth Circuit to reconsider the case and determine whether it had become moot.

Cardinal Chemical v. Morton International

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:18 +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.

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

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:26 +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.

United States v. Green

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:09 +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

Church Of Scientology Of California v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:00:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-946

Petitioner

Church Of Scientology Of California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 9 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, October 6, 1992

Decided

Monday, November 16, 1992

Advocates

Eric M. Lieberman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Norman v. Reed

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1126

Petitioner

Norman et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reed et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 90-1435

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 279 (1992)

Argued

Monday, October 7, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, January 14, 1992

Advocates

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

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

Gregory A. Adamski (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:14 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1955

Appellee

Continental Bank Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lewis

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 472 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, November 28, 1989

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1990

Advocates

Andrew S. Gordon (on behalf of the Appellees)

Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Lewis, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 101 Stat. 554

None

Frank v. Minnesota Newspaper Assn., Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:25 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1956

Appellee

Minnesota Newspaper Assn., Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Frank

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 225 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, March 22, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, April 25, 1989

Advocates

P. Cameron DeVore (on behalf of the Appellee)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Frank, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

American Foreign Service Assn. v. Garfinkel

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:29 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-2127

Appellee

Garfinkel

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

American Foreign Service Assn.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 153 (1989)

Argued

Monday, March 20, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, April 18, 1989

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Respondents)

Patti Goldman (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for American Foreign Service Assn., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Bowen v. Kizer

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-863

Petitioner

Bowen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kizer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 386 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, March 23, 1988

Advocates

Thomas W. Merrill (on behalf of Petitioner)

Ralph M. Johnson (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Kizer, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Honig v. Doe

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-728

Petitioner

Honig

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Doe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 305 (1988)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, January 20, 1988

Advocates

Sheila L. Brogna (on behalf of Respondents)

Asher Rubin (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Glen D. Nager (as Amicus Curiae; in support of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Doe, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Education of the Handicapped, Education for All Handicapped Children, or Individuals with Disabilities Education Acts, or related statutes, as amended; also see ADA

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

California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1200

Appellee

Granite Rock Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

California Coastal Comm'n

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 572 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, December 2, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1987

Advocates

Barbara R. Banke (on behalf of Appellee)

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

Linus Masouredis (on behalf of Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for California Coastal Comm'n, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1254

None

Burke v. Barnes

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:53 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-781

Petitioner

Burke

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Barnes

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 361 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, November 4, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, January 14, 1987

Advocates

Morgan J. Frankel (on behalf of Respondents)

Richard K. Willard (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Burke, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Department Of Treasury v. Galioto

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1904

Appellee

Galioto

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Department Of Treasury

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

477 U.S. 556 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, March 26, 1986

Decided

Thursday, June 26, 1986

Advocates

Michael A. Casale (on behalf of Appellee)

Charles A. Rothfeld (on behalf of Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Department Of Treasury, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1560

Petitioner

Press-Enterprise Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Superior Court

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

478 U.S. 1 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, February 26, 1986

Decided

Monday, June 30, 1986

Advocates

Joyce Ellen M. Reikes (on behalf of the respondent)

James D. Ward (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Press-Enterprise Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

United States v. Koecher

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1922

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Koecher

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 133 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, January 15, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, February 25, 1986

Advocates

Gerard E. Lynch (on behalf of the respondent)

Christopher J. Wright (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lake Coal Co., Inc. v. Roberts & Schaefer Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:21 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1240

Petitioner

Lake Coal Co., Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Roberts & Schaefer Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

474 U.S. 120 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, October 15, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, December 3, 1985

Advocates

Cleon Kilmer Combs (on behalf of the Respondent)

Ronald Glen Polly (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Roberts & Schaefer Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Tiverton Bd. Of License Comm'rs v. Pastore

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:14 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-963

Petitioner

Tiverton Bd. Of License Comm'rs

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pastore

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 238 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, November 27, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, January 8, 1985

Advocates

Kathleen Managhan (on behalf of the petitioner)

John H. Hines, Jr. (on behalf of the respondents;)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Firefighters v. Stotts

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-206

Petitioner

Firefighters

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stotts

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 82-229

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 561 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, June 12, 1984

Advocates

Allen S. Blair (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Richard B. Fields (on behalf of the Respondents)

Rex E. Lee (amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Firefighters, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Firefighters v. Boston Chapter, NAACP

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-185

Petitioner

Firefighters

Respondent

Boston Chapter, NAACP

Consolidation

No. 82-246

No. 82-259

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

461 U.S. 477 (1983)

Argued

Monday, April 18, 1983

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1983

Advocates

Thomas A. Barnico (on behalf of State Petitioners)

John Mc Mahon (on behalf of Union Petitioners)

James S. Dittmar (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Murphy v. Hunt

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2165

Appellee

Hunt

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Murphy

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 478 (1982)

Argued

Monday, January 18, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, March 2, 1982

Advocates

Terry R. Schaaf (on behalf of the Appellant)

Bennett G. Hornstein (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lane v. Williams

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1240

Petitioner

Lane

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Williams

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 624 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, December 1, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, March 23, 1982

Advocates

Martha A. Mills (on behalf of the Respondents)

Michael B. Weinstein (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

City Of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:29 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1577

Appellee

Aladdin's Castle, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

City Of Mesquite

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 283 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1982

Advocates

Philip W. Tone (on behalf of the Appellee)

Elland Archer (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

University Of Texas v. Camenisch

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-317

Petitioner

University Of Texas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Camenisch

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 390 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, March 31, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, April 29, 1981

Advocates

Lonny F. Zwiener (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Peter Buscemi (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Stephen J. Pollak (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Vitek v. Jones

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1155

Appellee

Jones

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Vitek

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 480 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, December 5, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, March 25, 1980

Advocates

Melvin Kent Kammerlohr (on behalf of the appellants)

Thomas A. Wurtz (on behalf of the appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

County Of Los Angeles v. Davis

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1553

Petitioner

County Of Los Angeles

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Davis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 625 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, March 27, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Davis, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Vitek v. Jones

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-888

Appellee

Jones

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Vitek

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 407 (1978)

Argued

Monday, April 24, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, May 23, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Epa v. Brown

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-909

Petitioner

Epa

Respondent

Brown

Consolidation

No. 75-960

No. 75-1050

No. 75-1055

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 99 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, January 12, 1977

Decided

Monday, May 2, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Epa, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Kremens v. Bartley

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1064

Appellee

Bartley

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Kremens

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 119 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, December 1, 1976

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Scott v. Kentucky Parole Board

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-6438

Petitioner

Scott

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kentucky Parole Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 60 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, October 12, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, November 2, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Craig v. Boren

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:10 +0000

Location

Craig's Residence Stillwater, OK

United States

36° 6' 56.1852" N, 97° 3' 30.1248" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-628

Appellee

Boren

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Craig

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 190 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, October 5, 1976

Decided

Monday, December 20, 1976

Advocates

James H. Gray (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Frederick P. Gilbert (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

An Oklahoma law prohibited the sale of "nonintoxicating" 3.2 percent beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18. Curtis Craig, a male then between the ages of 18 and 21, and a licensed vendor challenged the law as discriminatory.

Question

Did an Oklahoma statute violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by establishing different drinking ages for men and women?

Conclusion

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

In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the statute made unconstitutional gender classifications. The Court held that the statistics relied on by the state of Oklahoma were insufficient to show a substantial relationship between the law and the maintenance of traffic safety. Generalities about the drinking habits of aggregate groups did not suffice. The Court also found that the Twenty-first Amendment did not alter the application of the Equal Protection Clause in the case.

Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:12:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-728

Petitioner

Franks

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bowman Transportation Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 747 (1976)

Argued

Monday, November 3, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Franks, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Preiser v. Newkirk

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-107

Petitioner

Preiser

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Newkirk

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 395 (1975)

Argued

Monday, January 20, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, June 25, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Newkirk, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Indianapolis School Comm'rs v. Jacobs

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1347

Petitioner

Indianapolis School Comm'rs

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jacobs

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 128 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, December 11, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, February 18, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Jacobs, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

United States v. N. J. State Lottery Comm'n

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1471

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

N. J. State Lottery Comm'n

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 371 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, November 20, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, February 25, 1975

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Edwards v. Healy

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-759

Petitioner

Healy

Respondent

Edwards

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 772 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, October 16, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1975

Advocates

Kendall L. Vick (argued the cause for the appellant)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

DeFunis v. Odegaard

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:07 +0000

Location

University of Washington Law School

4293 Memorial Way Seattle WA 98195

Seattle, WA 98195

United States

47° 39' 35.028" N, 122° 18' 35.0352" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-235

Petitioner

DeFunis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Odegaard

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 312 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, February 26, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, April 23, 1974

Facts of the Case

DeFunis was denied admission to the University of Washington Law School despite test scores that were higher than some of the minorities admitted. DeFunis then successfully asked a trial court to require the school to admit him. On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court reversed, upholding the school's decision to deny DeFunis admission. The U.S. Supreme Court considered the case as DeFunis was entering his final year of school.

Question

Was the case in question moot and therefore outside the scope of judicial review?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for DeFunis, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

In a 5-4 per curiam opinion, the Court held that because the University of Washington Law School had agreed to allow DeFunis to enroll and to earn a diploma, the case in question was moot. DeFunis would be able to complete his legal studies irrespective of any Supreme Court decision. The controversy between parties had thus "clearly ceased to be 'definite and concrete' and no longer 'touch[ed] the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.'"

Super Tire Engineering Co. v. Mccorkle

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1554

Petitioner

Super Tire Engineering Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mccorkle

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 115 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, January 15, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, April 16, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Super Tire Engineering Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Patterson v. Warner

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:38 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-5839

Appellee

Warner

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Patterson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 303 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, January 9, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, February 26, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Allee v. Medrano

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1125

Appellee

Medrano

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Allee

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 802 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, November 13, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Allee, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Foley v. Blair & Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1154

Petitioner

Foley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Blair & Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 212 (1973)

Argued

Monday, November 12, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, December 5, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Spomer v. Littleton

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:09:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-955

Petitioner

Spomer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Littleton

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 514 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, October 17, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, January 15, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Indiana Employment Division v. Burney

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1119

Appellee

Burney

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Indiana Employment Division

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 540 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, December 7, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, January 17, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Indiana Employment Division, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None