Cases by Issue - Supreme Court Jurisdiction from Federal Courts

Unitherm Food Systems v. Swift Eckrich

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:45:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

04-597

Petitioner

Unitherm Food Systems, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Swift-Eckrich, Inc., dba ConAgra Refrigerated Foods

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Roberts Court (2005-2006)

Decided By

Roberts Court (2005-2006)

Opinion

546 U.S. ___ (2006)

Granted

Monday, February 28, 2005

Argued

Wednesday, November 2, 2005

Decided

Monday, January 23, 2006

Advocates

Burck Bailey (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Malcolm L. Stewart (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Robert A. Schroeder (argued the cause for Respondent)

Facts of the Case

When ConAgra, Swift-Eckrich's parent company, attempted to enforce its patent for a process for browning precooked meats, Unitherm claimed that the patent was invalid because Unitherm's president had invented the process six years before. Unitherm sued, alleging that ConAgra had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by attempting to enforce a patent obtained by fraud. Pursuant to Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ConAgra moved for judgment as a matter of law, asking the Disrict Court to dismiss the case based on insufficiency of evidence. The court denied the motion and sent the case to the jury, which returned a verdict for Unitherm. ConAgra appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, again arguing that the evidence was insufficent to prove an antitrust violation. However, ConAgra did not renew the motion for judgment as a matter of law after the verdict, pursuant to Rule 50(b), or move for a new trial, pursuant to Rule 59. Normally, parties must file the Rule 50(b) motion after an unfavorable verdict in order to obtain judgment as a matter of law on appeal. Unitherm argued that since ConAgra had failed to renew its motion under Rule 50(b), the Court of Appeals could not consider the insufficiency-of-evidence claim. ConAgra took the position that renewal of the motion is optional. The Federal Circuit considered itself bound to apply the precedent of the relevant regional Circuit Court (the Tenth), under which Rule 50(b) is indeed optional, in contrast to the precedents of the other Circuit Courts. The Federal Circuit found the evidence insufficient to support the jury's verdict, so it reversed the District Court and ordered a new trial. Unitherm appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to consider the procedural dispute.

Question

May a court of appeals review the sufficiency of evidence supporting a jury's verdict if the appellant failed to renew the motion for judgment under Rule 50(b) or move for a new trial under Rule 59?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Unitherm Food Systems, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

No. In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court ruled that a party must renew its motion for judgment under Rule 50(b) if the motion is to be the basis for an appeal. The District Court's denial of the initial Rule 50(a) motion could not itself form the basis of an appeal, because the denial was within the District Court's discretion. "The only error here," Justice Thomas noted, "was counsel's failure to file a postverdict motion pursuant to Rule 50(b)." Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissent, joined by Justice Kennedy, arguing that in exceptional cases courts of appeals can consider substantive issues even when procedural oversights by appellants would normally preclude them.

Hohn v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

96-8986

Petitioner

Hohn

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

524 U.S. 236 (1998)

Argued

Tuesday, March 3, 1998

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1998

Advocates

Matthew D. Roberts (Argued the cause for the United States)

Eileen Penner (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Jeffrey S. Sutton (Argued the cause as amicus curiae by invitation of the Court)

Facts of the Case

Arnold Hohn was convicted, among other things, of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense. Two years after his conviction became final, the Supreme Court decided that the term "use" in 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1) required active employment of the firearm. Hohn filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 to vacate his Section 942(c)(1) conviction on the ground that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to prove use of a firearm. While his motion was pending before the district court, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which requires a Section 2255 petitioner to obtain a certificate of appealability from a circuit justice or judge before he can appeal the denial of a Section 2255 petition. 28 U.S.C. Section 2253(c)(1). The district court denied Hohn's petition and he appealed. The court of appeals treated the notice of appeal as an application for a certificate of appealability, and a three-judge panel declined to issue a certificate. Hohn then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the denial of the certificate, seeking to invoke the Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1254(1).

Question

Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to review decisions of the courts of appeals denying applications for certificates of appealability?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hohn, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1254

Yes. A certificate application is a "case in" the court of appeals under Section 1254(1). It presents an immediate and redressable injury, and there is adversity as well as the other requisite qualities of a case. Indeed, Hohn's application moved through the Eighth Circuit as cases in general do, yielding a decision that has been regarded as precedential. Many other factors confirm this conclusion as well. This decision overrules that portion of House v. Mayo, 324 U.S. 42, 44 (1945) (per curiam), which held that the Court lacks statutory certiorari jurisdiction to review denials of certificates of probable cause.

U. S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

93-714

Petitioner

U. S. Bancorp Mortgage Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bonner Mall Partnership

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

513 U.S. 18 (1994)

Argued

Tuesday, October 4, 1994

Decided

Tuesday, November 8, 1994

Advocates

John Ford Elsaesser, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the U.S., as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioner)

Bradford Anderson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bonner Mall Partnership, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Republic National Bank Of Miami v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-767

Petitioner

Republic National Bank Of Miami

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 80 (1992)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1992

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1992

Advocates

Stanley A. Beiley (on behalf of the Petitioner)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Republic National Bank Of Miami, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 7: Appropriations Clause

None

Maine v. Taylor

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:19 +0000

Location

Maine State Legislature

2 State House Augusta ME 04330

Augusta, ME 04330

United States

44° 18' 51.9804" N, 69° 46' 26.8968" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-62

Appellee

Taylor

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Maine

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

477 U.S. 131 (1986)

Argued

Monday, March 24, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, June 24, 1986

Advocates

E. Paul Eggert (Argued the cause for appellee Taylor)

Cabanne Howard (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Jerrold J. Ganzfried (Argued the cause for the United States, as appellee under the Court's Rule 10.4, in support of appellant)

Facts of the Case

In order to protect its fisheries from parasites and non-native species, the state of Maine prohibited the importation of live baitfish. Robert J. Taylor, the owner of a bait business, violated the law and was prosecuted by Maine authorities.

Question

Did the Maine law unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce, violating the Commerce Clause?

Conclusion

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

No. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the limitation imposed by the Commerce Clause on state regulatory power was not absolute and that the States "retain[ed] authority under their general police powers to regulate matters of 'legitimate local concern.'" The Court found that Maine's ban on the importation oflive baitfish served a legitimate local purpose that could not adequately be served by available nondiscriminatory alternatives. The Court argued that the ban was not a simple case of "arbitrary discrimination against interstate commerce."

Thornburgh v. Amer. Coll. of Obst. & Gyn.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:09 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-495

Petitioner

Thornburgh

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Amer. Coll. of Obst. & Gyn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 747 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, November 5, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, June 11, 1986

Advocates

Kathryn Kolbert (on behalf of the appellees)

Andrew S. Gordon (on behalf of the appellants)

Facts of the Case

In 1982, the state of Pennsylvania enacted legislation that placed a number of restrictions on abortion. The law required the following: "informed consent" of the woman, the dissemination of information concerning the risks of abortion, reporting procedures, the use of certain medical techniques after viability, and the presence of a second physician for post-viability abortions. The initial suit was brought against Richard Thornburgh, the Governor of Pennsylvania.

Question

Did the Pennsylvania requirements unconstitutionally interfere with the right to privacy?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Amer. Coll. of Obst. & Gyn., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the Pennsylvania requirements "wholly subordinate[d] constitutional privacy interests and concerns with maternal health" and were attempts to deter women from making their own choices concerning abortion. The Court held that 1) the "informed consent" and printed materials provisions unduly intruded upon the priva cy of patients and physicians; 2) the reporting and viability determination provisions were designed to identify and deter women from having abortions through the threat of harassment; and 3) the post-viability care and second physician provisions unconstitutionally interfered with the health of the mother by increasing delays and medical risks.

Escambia County v. Mcmillan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1295

Appellee

Mcmillan

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Escambia County

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 48 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, January 10, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, March 27, 1984

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Heckler v. Edwards

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:21 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-874

Petitioner

Heckler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Edwards

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 870 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, November 30, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, March 21, 1984

Advocates

Neal S. Dudovitz (on behalf of Respondents)

John H. Garvey (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Heckler, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1252

None

Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Tully

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-2394

Appellee

Tully

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Westinghouse Electric Corp.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 388 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, November 1, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, April 24, 1984

Advocates

Peter H. Schiff (on behalf of the Appellees)

Paul M. Dodyk (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Westinghouse Electric Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Silkwood v. Kerr-Mcgee Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-2159

Appellee

Kerr-Mcgee Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Silkwood

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

464 U.S. 238 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, October 4, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, January 11, 1984

Advocates

C. Lee Cook, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellees)

Michael H. Gottesman (on behalf of the Appellant)

John H. Garvey (as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Silkwood, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1254

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

Hicks v. Miranda

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:13 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-156

Appellee

Miranda

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hicks

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 332 (1975)

Argued

Monday, March 24, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, June 24, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mtm, Inc. v. Baxley

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:09 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1119

Appellee

Baxley

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mtm, Inc.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 799 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, December 10, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, March 25, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mtm, Inc., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1253

None

Mclucas v. Dechamplain

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1346

Appellee

Dechamplain

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mclucas

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 21 (1975)

Argued

Monday, December 9, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, April 15, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mclucas, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Uniform Code of Military Justice

None

Gonzalez v. Employees Credit Union

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-858

Appellee

Employees Credit Union

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Gonzalez

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

419 U.S. 90 (1974)

Argued

Monday, October 21, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, December 10, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Gonzalez, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1253

None

Bd. Of Regents v. New Left Education Project

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:45 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-55

Appellee

New Left Education Project

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Bd. Of Regents

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

404 U.S. 541 (1972)

Argued

Monday, December 6, 1971

Decided

Monday, January 24, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Bd. Of Regents, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2281

None

United States v. Ryan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

758

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ryan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 530 (1971)

Argued

Monday, April 26, 1971

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Vuitch

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Vuitch

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 62 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, January 12, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, April 21, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

United States v. Weller

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Weller

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 254 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, December 10, 1970

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Moore v. Board Of Education

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

444

Appellee

Board Of Education

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Moore

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 47 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, April 20, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

U. S. v. Sisson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

305

Appellee

Sisson

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

U. S.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

399 U.S. 267 (1970)

Argued

January 20-21, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 29, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Sisson, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 3731

None

Utah Comm'n v. El Paso Gas Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

776

Appellee

El Paso Gas Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Utah Comm'n

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 464 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, April 29, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Utah Comm'n, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Supreme Court Rules

None

Gunn v. University Committee

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:45 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

University Committee

Respondent

Gunn

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

399 U.S. 383 (1970)

Argued

January 13-14, 1969

Reargued:

April 29-30, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 29, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for University Committee, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1253

None

United States v. Covington

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

366

Appellee

Covington

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 57 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, December 12, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Covington, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Schneider v. Smith

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

196

Petitioner

Smith

Respondent

Schneider

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 17 (1968)

Argued

December 12-13, 1967

Decided

Tuesday, January 16, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Moody v. Flowers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

624

Appellee

Flowers

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Moody

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 491

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 97 (1967)

Argued

Tuesday, April 18, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Engineers v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.

Respondent

Engineers

Consolidation

No. 71

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 423 (1966)

Argued

December 8-9, 1965

Decided

Monday, January 31, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Engineers, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2281

None

United States v. Johnson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Johnson

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 169 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, November 10, 1965, Monday, November 15, 1965

Decided

Thursday, February 24, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Johnson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 1: Speech or Debate Clause

None

United States v. Guest

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:01 +0000

Location

Where Penn was killed

Broad River and Georgia State Route 172 Corner GA 30629

Corner, GA 30629

United States

34° 9' 24.84" N, 83° 4' 59.88" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Herbert Guest et al.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 745 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, November 9, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 28, 1966

Advocates

Thurgood Marshall (Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States)

Charles J. Bloch (argued the cause for appellee James Lackey)

James E. Hudson (argued the cause for the other appellees)

Facts of the Case

On July 11, 1964 Lt. Col. Lemuel Penn was shot and killed by three members of the Ku Klux Klan while driving home from Washington, D.C. The alleged shooters, James Lackey, Cecil Myers, and Howard Sims, were indicted but acquitted by an all-white jury. Following the acquittal, the three defendants were indicted on charges of conspiracy to threaten, abuse, and kill African- Americans. Three alleged co-conspirators, Denver Phillips, George Turner, and Herbert Guest, were also charged. U.S. Code defines criminal conspiracy as two or more individuals conspiring to "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States." The indictment filed against the six alleged conspirators accused them of acting to deny African-Americans full and equal enjoyment and utilization of goods and services, including access to state highways and free travel to and from Georgia on public streets. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that it did not allege a specific denial of rights under U.S. law. The district court agreed, and dismissed the indictment. The prosecution appealed, arguing that the indictment alleged, in part, a denial of rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Question

Did the alleged actions of the six defendants constitute a denial of rights under the Constitution and U.S. law?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 241

Yes. In an 8-1 opinion authored by Justice Potter Stewart, the Court found that the indictment did allege a denial of constitutional rights. In United States v. Price, an opinion released the same day as Guest, the Court found that Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were covered by the criminal conspiracy statute, and the Court found no reason to distinguish between two clauses of the same amendment. Furthermore, the Court found that, although the Equal Protection Clause only covers state action, such action need not be "exclusive or direct." For instance, the indictment alleged that the conspirators attempted to have African-Americans arrested by filing false criminal reports. Because such an act would involve state actors in the form of law enforcement officials, according to the Court, the Equal Protection Clause applied. "Although it is possible that a bill of particulars, or proof if the case goes to trial, would disclose no cooperative action of that kind by officials of the State, the allegation is enough to prevent dismissal of…the indictment."

Swift & Co. v. Wickham

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Wickham

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Swift & Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 111 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, October 13, 1965

Decided

Monday, November 22, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Wickham, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1253

None

U.S. v. Georgia Pub. Ser v. Comm'n.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Comm'n.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

U.S. v. Georgia Pub. Ser

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

371 U.S. 285 (1963)

Argued

Thursday, October 18, 1962

Decided

Monday, January 14, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for U.S. v. Georgia Pub. Ser, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1253

None

Paul v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Paul

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

371 U.S. 245 (1963)

Argued

October 17-18, 1962

Decided

Monday, January 14, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1253

None

Rusk v. Cort

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Cort

Respondent

Rusk

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 367 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1961

Reargued:

December 4-5, 1962

Decided

Monday, April 2, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Cort, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Kesler v. Dept. Of Public Safety

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Dept. Of Public Safety

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Kesler

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 153 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, October 10, 1961

Decided

Monday, March 26, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Dept. Of Public Safety, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Rohr Corp. v. San Diego County

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

295

Appellee

San Diego County

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Rohr Corp.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

362 U.S. 628 (1960)

Argued

Wednesday, March 30, 1960

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Rohr Corp., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

None

Florida Lime Growers v. Jacobsen

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Jacobsen

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Florida Lime Growers

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

362 U.S. 73 (1960)

Argued

December 9-10, 1959

Decided

Monday, March 7, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Florida Lime Growers, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1253

None

Spevack v. Strauss

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:12 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

339

Petitioner

Spevack

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Strauss

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

359 U.S. 115 (1959)

Argued

Thursday, March 5, 1959

Decided

Monday, March 23, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Chicago v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

103

Petitioner

Chicago

Respondent

Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co.

Consolidation

No. 104

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

357 U.S. 77 (1958)

Argued

March 5-6, 1958

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

United States v. Hvass

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Hvass

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

355 U.S. 570 (1958)

Argued

Monday, January 27, 1958

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1621

None

Linehan v. Waterfront Commission

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

557

Appellee

Waterfront Commission

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Linehan

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 558

Decided By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Opinion

347 U.S. 439 (1954)

Decided

Monday, April 12, 1954

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Waterfront Commission, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1253

None