Cases by Issue - Military Residency Requirements

Edmond v. United States

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

96-262

Petitioner

Edmond

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

520 U.S. 651 (1997)

Argued

Monday, February 24, 1997

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1997

Advocates

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

Malcolm L. Stewart (Department of Justice, argued the cause for respondent)

Facts of the Case

The Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, formerly the Coast Guard Court of Military Review, hears appeals from the decisions of courts martial, and its decisions are subject to review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals' judges may be officers or civilians. During the time in dispute, two civilian members sat on the court. The General Counsel of the Department of Transportation originally assigned both civilian judges to the court. Afterwards the Secretary of Transportation issued a memorandum adopting the General Counsel's assignments as appointments of his own. Jon E. Edmond and others were convicted while one or both civilian judges participated on the court. Subsequently, their convictions were upheld on appeal. Edmond and others argued that the civilian judges' appointments were invalid due to the Appointments Clause, which holds "principle officers" must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Question

Has Congress authorized the Secretary of Transportation to appoint civilian members of the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals? If so, is this authorization constitutional under the Appointments Clause of Article II?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 49 U.S.C. 323

Yes and yes. In an opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the judicial appointments were valid. The Court unanimously found that Congress has authorized the Secretary to appoint civilian members of the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the Court also reasoned that the Secretary's 1993 appointments of the two civilian judges in question were valid under the Appointments Clause, since such judges were inferior officers within the clause's meaning, by reason of the supervision of the judges' work by the General Counsel and by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Justice Scalia noted that the Appointments Clause gives the President the exclusive power to select principal officers by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, but authorizes Congress to "vest the Appointment of...inferior Officers...in the Heads of Departments." Justice David H. Souter filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

Loving v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:38 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

94-1966

Petitioner

Loving

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

517 U.S. 748 (1996)

Argued

Tuesday, January 9, 1996

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1996

Advocates

John H. Blume (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Edwin S. Kneedler (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

A general court-martial found Dwight J. Loving, an Army private, guilty of both premeditated murder and felony murder under Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The court-martial sentenced Loving to death based on the aggravating factors that the premeditated murder was committed during a robbery and that he had committed a second murder. The commander who convened the court-martial approved the findings and sentence. In affirming, the U.S. Army Court of Military Review and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces rejected Loving's contention that the President lacked the authority to prescribe aggravating factors in capital murder cases that enabled the court- martial to sentence him to death. Loving claimed that the separation-of-powers principle prevented the President from promulgating the Executive Order.

Question

Does the President have the authority, consistent with the separation-of- powers principle, to prescribe aggravating factors that permit a court-martial to impose the death penalty upon a member of the armed forces convicted of murder?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that not only does the Constitution require the aggravating factors of the military's death penalty, but that the President's prescription of the challenged aggravating factors did not violate the separation-of-powers principle. Justice Kennedy wrote, "[a]lthough it may not delegate the power to make the law...Congress may delegate to others the authority or discretion to execute the law under and in pursuance of its terms."

Ryder v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

94-431

Petitioner

Ryder

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

515 U.S. 177 (1995)

Argued

Tuesday, April 18, 1995

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1995

Advocates

Allen Lotz (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace (Argued the cause for the respondent United States)

Facts of the Case

James Ryder, an enlisted member of the Coast Guard, was convicted of drug offenses by a court-martial. The Coast Guard Court of Military Review affirmed. On rehearing, the court rejected Ryder's claim that its composition violated the Appointments Clause because two of the judges on the three-judge panel were civilians appointed by the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation. The Court of Military Appeals agreed with Ryder that the appointments violated the Clause under its previous decision in United States v. Carpenter that appellate military judges are inferior officers who must be appointed by a President, a court of law, or a head of a department. The court nonetheless affirmed Ryder's conviction on the ground that the actions of the two civilian judges were valid de facto.

Question

Is it proper to accord de facto validity to the actions of civilian judges on a military appellate panel, when the accused challenges the composition of the panel as a violation of the Constitution's Appointments Clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Ryder, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2: Appointments Clause

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the judges' actions were not valid de facto. The Court reasoned that a defendant who made a timely challenge to the constitutional validity of the appointment of an officer who adjudicates his case was entitled to a decision on the merits of the question and whatever relief may be appropriate if a violation had occurred. The Court also noted that review by the properly constituted Court of Military Appeals did not necessarily give Ryder all the possibility for relief that review by a properly constituted Coast Guard Court of Military Review would have given him.

Brown, Secretary Of Veterans Affairs v. Gardner

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:25 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

93-1128

Petitioner

Brown, Secretary Of Veterans Affairs

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gardner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

513 U.S. 115 (1994)

Argued

Monday, October 31, 1994

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1994

Advocates

Joseph M. Hannon, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Edward C. DuMont (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Fred P. Gardner was treated in a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facility. Afterwards, he experienced weakness in his left leg, allegedly a result of the surgery. He claimed disability benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151, which requires the VA to pay disability compensation if an injury occurs as a result of or is worsened by treatment. The VA and the Board of Veterans Appeals denied the claim, stating that the statute, as interpreted by VA regulation 38 CFR 3.358 (c)(3), requires that the claimant prove that the injury arose due to negligence or error by the VA facility. The Court of Veterans Appeals reversed the decision on the ground that the fault-or-accident requirement in 38 CFR 3.358 was not warranted by Section 1151. The decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Question

Is Department of Veterans Affairs regulation 38 CFR 3.358 (c)(3), which restricts disability compensation to injuries caused by accidents or negligence during surgery, consistent with the controlling statute, 38 U.S.C. 1151?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Gardner, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 1151

No. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice David Souter, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision and ruled for Gardner. The Court held that Section 1151 contains no language requiring proof of fault, and it rejected the Government's claims that the requirement was implicit in the language of the statute. The Court acknowledged the 60-year longevity of the regulation and the post-1934 legislative silence on the issue, but neither concern could overcome the plain language of Section 1151.

Weiss v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-1482

Petitioner

Weiss

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Opinion

510 U.S. 163 (1994)

Argued

Wednesday, November 3, 1993

Decided

Wednesday, January 19, 1994

Advocates

Alan B. Morrison (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Drew S. Days, III (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2: Appointments Clause

None

Conroy v. Aniskoff

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:14 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1353

Petitioner

Conroy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aniskoff et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 511 (1993)

Argued

Monday, January 11, 1993

Decided

Wednesday, March 31, 1993

Advocates

Kevin M. Cuddy (on behalf of the Respondents)

Robert H. Klonoff (on behalf of the Petitioner)

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

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

William "Sky" King v. St. Vincent's Hospital

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-889

Petitioner

William "Sky" King

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

St. Vincent's Hospital

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 215 (1991)

Argued

Wednesday, October 16, 1991

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1991

Advocates

Harry L. Hopkins (on behalf of the Respondent)

Amy L. Wax (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for William "Sky" King, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 2024

None

Traynor v. Turnage

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-622

Petitioner

Traynor

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Turnage

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 86-737

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 535 (1988)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, April 20, 1988

Advocates

Keith A. Teel (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Jerrold J. Ganzfried (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Turnage, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 211

None

Solorio v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1581

Petitioner

Solorio

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 435 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, February 24, 1987

Decided

Thursday, June 25, 1987

Advocates

Ribert W. Bruce, Jr. (on behalf of the petitioner)

Eugene R. Fidell (as amicus curiae supporting petitioner)

Charles Fried (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 14: Governance of the Armed Forces

None

Monroe v. Standard Oil Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-298

Petitioner

Monroe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Standard Oil Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 549 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, March 4, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, June 17, 1981

Advocates

Paul S. McAuliffe (on behalf of the Respondent)

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Standard Oil Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 2021

None

Coffy v. Republic Steel Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-81

Petitioner

Coffy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Republic Steel Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 191 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, February 27, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, June 10, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Coffy, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 2021

None

Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:53 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-5729

Petitioner

Oliphant

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Suquamish Indian Tribe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 191 (1978)

Argued

Monday, January 9, 1978

Decided

Monday, March 6, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Oliphant, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. Larionoff

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-413

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Larionoff

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 864 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, April 27, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Alabama Power Co. v. Davis

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-451

Petitioner

Alabama Power Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Davis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 581 (1977)

Argued

April 25-26, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Davis, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Foster v. Dravo Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1773

Petitioner

Foster

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dravo Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 92 (1975)

Argued

Monday, January 20, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, February 18, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Dravo Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Schlesinger, v. Councilman

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-662

Petitioner

Schlesinger,

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Councilman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 738 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, December 10, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, March 25, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Schlesinger,, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Uniform Code of Military Justice

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

Schick v. Reed

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:14 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-5677

Petitioner

Schick

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reed

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

419 U.S. 256 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, October 23, 1974

Decided

Monday, December 23, 1974

Facts of the Case

Schick, a master sergeant in the Army, was convicted of murder in a military court and sentenced to death in 1954. President Eisenhower intervened and commuted his sentence in 1960, reducing it to life imprisonment without parole.

Question

Did Eisenhower exceed his powers to commute criminal sentences?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Reed, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Presidential Pardoning Power

The Court dismissed Schick's claim that Eisenhower's action was invalid because it imposed a condition not authorized by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Tracing the development and Court's interpretation of the President's powers to commute sentences, Chief Justice Burger argued that since the pardoning power is an enumerated one, any limit on it must be found in the Constitution. Thus, its use does not depend on statutes such as those found in the military code.

Cass v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-604

Petitioner

Cass

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 73-5661

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 72 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, April 16, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, May 28, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 10 U.S.C. 687

None

Secretary Of The Navy v. Avrech

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:31 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1713

Appellee

Avrech

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Secretary Of The Navy

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 676 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, February 20, 1974

Decided

Monday, July 8, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Secretary Of The Navy, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Parker v. Levy

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-206

Appellee

Levy

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Parker

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 733 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, February 20, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, June 19, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Parker, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Hernandez v. Veterans' Administration

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-700

Petitioner

Hernandez

Respondent

Veterans' Administration

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 391 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, December 11, 1973

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1974

Advocates

Jack R. Petranker (pro hac vice, argued the cause for the petitioners)

Lawrence L. Curtice (argued the cause for the petitioners)

Gerald P. Norton (argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hernandez, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 211

None

Johnson v. Robison

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1297

Petitioner

Robison

Respondent

Johnson

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 361 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, December 11, 1973

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1974

Advocates

Gerald P. Norton (argued the cause for the appellants)

Michael David Rosenberg (argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Johnson, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 211

None

Relford v. U.S. Disciplinary Commandant

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Isiah Relford

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S. Disciplinary Commandant

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 355 (1971)

Argued

December 15-16, 1970

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1971

Advocates

Judson W. Detrick (by appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Erwin N. Griswold (Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for U.S. Disciplinary Commandant, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Uniform Code of Military Justice

None

Toussie v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:12 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

441

Petitioner

Toussie

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

397 U.S. 112 (1970)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1970

Decided

Monday, March 2, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Toussie, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Gutknecht v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Gutknecht

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

396 U.S. 295 (1970)

Argued

Thursday, November 20, 1969

Decided

Monday, January 19, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Gutknecht, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Breen v. Selective Service Board

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Breen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Selective Service Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

396 U.S. 460 (1970)

Argued

Wednesday, November 19, 1969

Decided

Monday, January 26, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Breen, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Mckart v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

403

Petitioner

Mckart

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 185 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, February 27, 1969

Decided

Monday, May 26, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mckart, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Duvernay v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

814

Petitioner

Duvernay

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 309 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, February 27, 1969

Decided

Monday, March 24, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

O'callahan v. Parker

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:53 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

646

Petitioner

O'callahan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Parker

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 258 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, January 23, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for O'callahan, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Uniform Code of Military Justice

None

United States v. Augenblick

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Augenblick

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 348 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, November 21, 1968

Decided

Tuesday, January 14, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Oestereich v. Selective Service Bd.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Oestereich

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Selective Service Bd.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 233 (1968)

Argued

Thursday, October 24, 1968

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Oestereich, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Accardi v. Pennsylvania R. Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

280

Petitioner

Accardi

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pennsylvania R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 225 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, January 20, 1966

Decided

Monday, February 28, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Accardi, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 54 Stat. 890

None

California v. Buzard

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Buzard

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 386 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, November 16, 1965

Decided

Tuesday, January 18, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Buzard, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 50 U.S.C. 574

None

Snapp v. Neal

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Snapp

Respondent

Neal

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 397 (1966)

Argued

November 15-16, 1965

Decided

Tuesday, January 18, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Snapp, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 50 U.S.C. 574

None

Tilton v. Missouri P. R. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:25 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Tilton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Missouri P. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 169 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, January 7, 1964

Decided

Monday, February 17, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Tilton, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Brooks v. Missouri P. R. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:21 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Brooks

Respondent

Missouri P. R. Co.

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 182 (1964)

Argued

January 7-8, 1964

Decided

Monday, February 17, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Brooks, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Porter v. Aetna Casualty Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

604

Petitioner

Porter

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aetna Casualty Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 159 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, April 25, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Porter, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 3101

None

United States v. Shimer

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

392

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shimer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

367 U.S. 374 (1961)

Argued

Thursday, April 27, 1961

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 58 Stat. 284

None

United States v. Oregon

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

329

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oregon

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

366 U.S. 643 (1961)

Argued

Tuesday, April 25, 1961

Decided

Monday, May 29, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 17

None

Bell v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Bell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

366 U.S. 393 (1961)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1961

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bell, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 37 U.S.C. 242

None

Kinsella v. Singleton

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Singleton

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Kinsella

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

361 U.S. 234 (1960)

Argued

Thursday, October 22, 1959

Decided

Monday, January 18, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Singleton, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Uniform Code of Military Justice

None

Grisham v. Hagan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:18 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Grisham

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hagan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

361 U.S. 278 (1960)

Argued

Thursday, October 22, 1959

Decided

Monday, January 18, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Grisham, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Uniform Code of Military Justice

None

Mcelroy v. Guagliardo

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Mcelroy

Respondent

Guagliardo

Consolidation

No. 37, Wilson v. Bohlender

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

361 U.S. 281 (1960)

Argued

October 21-22, 1959

Decided

Monday, January 18, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Guagliardo, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Uniform Code of Military Justice

None

Lee v. Madigan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:02 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Lee

Respondent

Madigan

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

358 U.S. 228 (1959)

Argued

December 9-10, 1958

Decided

Monday, January 12, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Lee, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 10 U.S.C. 1564

None

Mckinney v. Missouri-K.-T. R. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:45 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Mckinney

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Missouri-K.-T. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

357 U.S. 265 (1958)

Argued

Monday, January 27, 1958

Decided

Monday, June 23, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Missouri-K.-T. R. Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Harmon v. Brucker

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Harmon

Respondent

Brucker

Consolidation

No. 141

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

355 U.S. 579 (1958)

Argued

January 14-15, 1958

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Harmon, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 10 U.S.C. 652

None

Wilson v. Girard

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

1103

Petitioner

Wilson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Girard

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Girard v. Wilson, No. 1108

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

354 U.S. 524 (1957)

Argued

Monday, July 8, 1957

Decided

Thursday, July 11, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Jackson v. Taylor

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:28:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

619

Petitioner

Jackson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Taylor

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

353 U.S. 569 (1957)

Argued

Tuesday, April 30, 1957

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Taylor, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Uniform Code of Military Justice

None

Fowler v. Wilkinson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:28:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

620

Petitioner

Fowler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wilkinson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

353 U.S. 583 (1957)

Argued

Tuesday, April 30, 1957

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Wilkinson, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Uniform Code of Military Justice

None