Cases by Issue - Hearing or Notice

Jones v. Flowers

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

04-1477

Petitioner

Gary Kent Jones

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Linda K. Flowers, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Roberts Court (2005-2006)

Decided By

Roberts Court (2006-2009)

Opinion

547 U.S. ___ (2006)

Granted

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Argued

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Decided

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Advocates

Michael T. Kirkpatrick (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Carter G. Phillips (argued the cause for Respondents)

James A. Feldman (argued the cause for Respondents)

Facts of the Case

In 1993, Gary Jones moved out of his house and into an apartment, while his wife continued to live in the house. Jones failed to notify the state of his new address, however, and after several years of unpaid property taxes the tax authority sent a letter by certified mail to the house notifying him that, if the taxes went unpaid, the house would be sold. The letter was returnes as "unclaimed" (because Jones was not living at the house) and the property was eventually sold to Linda Flowers, the Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands.

Jones sued in state court, claiming that the sale violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights because he was never actually notified of the sale. The Arkansas Supreme Court disagreed, however, finding that under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dusenberg v. United States actual notice is not required as long as the state makes a reasonable effort to notify the party of his rights.

Question

When mailed notice of a tax sale or property forfeiture is returned undelivered, does the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause require the government to make any additional effort to locate the owner before taking the property?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In a 5-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court overruled the Arkansas Supreme Court, ruling that "additional reasonable steps" are required after a mailed notice is returned undelivered. The Court noted that the Due Process Clause does not require that every property owner receive actual notice, but the government must make a sincere effort. In this case, the government knew that its first effort to notify Jones had failed. Therefore, the Court ruled that the government should have taken additional steps, such as remailing the notice or posting a notice on the house's door. Justice Thomas wrote a dissent, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Kennedy. Justice Alito took no part in the decision.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:33 +0000

Location

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Cuba

United States

19° 54' 7.9992" N, 75° 5' 56.0004" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

03-6696

Petitioner

Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi, as Next Friend of Yaser Esam Hamdi

Respondent

Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al.

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

542 U.S. 507 (2004)

Granted

Friday, January 9, 2004

Argued

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

Decided

Monday, June 28, 2004

Advocates

Paul D. Clement (argued the cause for Respondents)

Frank W. Dunham, Jr. (argued the cause for Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

In the fall of 2001, Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen, was arrested by the United States military in Afghanistan. He was accused of fighting for the Taliban against the U.S., declared an "enemy combatant," and transfered to a military prison in Virginia. Frank Dunham, Jr., a defense attorney in Virginia, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in federal district court there, first on his own and then for Hamdi's father, in an attempt to have Hamdi's detention declared unconstitutional. He argued that the government had violated Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely and not giving him access to an attorney or a trial. The government countered that the Executive Branch had the right, during wartime, to declare people who fight against the United States "enemy combatants" and thus restrict their access to the court system.

The district court ruled for Hamdi, telling the government to release him. On appeal, a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed, finding that the separation of powers required federal courts to practice restraint during wartime because "the executive and legislative branches are organized to supervise the conduct of overseas conflict in a way that the judiciary simply is not." The panel therefore found that it should defer to the Executive Branch's "enemy combatant" determination.

Question

Did the government violate Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an "enemy combatant" who fought against the United States? Does the separation of powers doctrine require federal courts to defer to Executive Branch determinations that an American citizen is an "enemy combatant"?

Conclusion

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

Yes and no. In an opinion backed by a four-justice plurality and partly joined by two additional justices, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that although Congress authorized Hamdi's detention, Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. The plurality rejected the government's argument that the separation-of-powers prevents the judiciary from hearing Hamdi's challenge. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurred with the plurality that Hamdi had the right to challenge in court his status as an enemy combatant. Souter and Ginsburg, however, disagreed with the plurality's view that Congress authorized Hamdi's detention. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissent joined by Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented separately.

Dusenbery v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:46:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

00-6567

Petitioner

Dusenbery

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

534 U.S. 161 (2002)

Argued

Monday, October 29, 2001

Decided

Tuesday, January 8, 2002

Advocates

Allison M. Zieve (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Jeffrey P. Minear (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

While Larry Dean Dusenbery was in prison on federal drug charges, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began an administrative process to forfeit cash that officers seized when they executed a search warrant for the residence where he was arrested. The FBI sought to notify Dusenbery by sending certified mail addressed to him care of the federal correctional institution where he was incarcerated; to the address of the residence where he was arrested; and to an address in the town where his mother lived. The FBI received no response in the time allotted and turned over the cash to the United States Marshals Service. When Dusenbery moved for the return of all the property and funds seized in his criminal case, the District Court denied the motion. On remand, the District Court ruled that the Government's sending of notice by certified mail to Dusenbery's place of incarceration satisfied his due process rights as to the cash. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question

Does the FBI's notice of intended forfeiture by sending certified letters to inmates while incarcerated satisfy due process?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the FBI's notice of the cash forfeiture satisfied due process. The Court reasoned that the means employed to provide notice to the prisoner were reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise the prisoner of the forfeiture. The prisoner did not actually have to receive the notice, noted Chief Justice Rehnquist. "The Government could, for example, have allowed [Dusenbery] to make an escorted visit to the post office himself in order to sign for his letter. But the Due Process Clause does not require such heroic efforts by the Government; it requires only that the Government's effort be 'reasonably calculated' to apprise a party of the pendency of the action." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, and Stephen G. Breyer, dissented, arguing that the Court was condoning a procedure that was too lax to reliably insure that a prisoner would receive a legal notice.

Lujan v. G&G Fire Sprinklers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

00-152

Petitioner

Lujan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

G&G Fire Sprinklers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

532 U.S. 189 (2001)

Argued

Monday, February 26, 2001

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 2001

Advocates

Thomas S. Kerrigan (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Stephen A. Seideman (Argued the cause for the respondent)

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

Facts of the Case

The California Labor Code requires that contractors and subcontractors on public works project pay their workers a prevailing wage that is determined by the state. The Code authorizes the state to withhold payments from contractors who fail to pay the prevailing wage. The contractor can, in turn, withhold payments to subcontractors who fail to pay the wage. To recover the wages or penalties withheld, the Code permits the contractor to sue for breach of contract. After the State Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) determined that G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc., a public works subcontractor, had violated the Code, it withheld from the contractors an amount equal to the wages and penalties forfeited due to G & G's violations. After its payment was withheld, G & G filed suit against DLSE, claiming that the lacking of a hearing deprived it of property without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Granting G & G summary judgment, the District Court declared the relevant Code sections unconstitutional. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that G & G's rights were violated not because it was deprived of immediate payment, but because the state statutory scheme afforded no hearing at all.

Question

Must states provide contractors and subcontractors a hearing to challenge a decision to withhold wage payments from contractors and subcontractors who fail to pay prevailing wages to satisfy due process?

Conclusion

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

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that because California state law affords G & G sufficient opportunity to pursue its claim for payment under its contracts in state court, the statutory scheme does not deprive it of due process. A contractor's claim for payment is "an interest...that can be fully protected by an ordinary breach-of-contract suit," wrote Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court. The Chief Justice continued that "if California makes ordinary judicial process available to [G & G] for resolving its contractual dispute, that process is due process."

Rogers v. Tennessee

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

99-6218

Petitioner

Rogers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tennessee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

532 U.S. 451 (2001)

Argued

Wednesday, November 1, 2000

Decided

Monday, May 14, 2001

Advocates

Michael E. Moore (Nashville, Tennessee, argued the cause for the respondent)

W. Mark Ward (Memphis, Tennessee, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Wilbert K. Rogers was convicted in Tennessee of second degree murder. The victim, James Bowdery, died 15 months after Rogers stabbed him. On appeal, Rogers argued that the Tennessee common law "year and a day rule," under which no defendant could be convicted of murder unless his victim died by the defendant's act within a year and a day of the act, persisted and precluded his conviction. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction. In affirming, the Tennessee Supreme Court ultimately abolished the rule and upheld Rogers' conviction. The court rejected Rogers' contention that abolishing the rule would violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Tennessee and Federal Constitutions. The court reasoned that those provisions referred only to legislative acts. Additionally, the court concluded its decision would not offend due process.

Question

Did the Supreme Court of Tennessee deny a defendant due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment when it retroactively applied a decision to abolish the state's common law "year-and-a-day rule?"

Conclusion

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

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that the Tennessee Supreme Court's retroactive application to a defendant of its decision abolishing the year-and-a-day rule did not deny Rogers due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. "The Tennessee court's abolition of the year and a day rule was not unexpected and indefensible," wrote Justice O'Connor. "Far from a marked and unpredictable departure from prior precedent, the court's decision was a routine exercise of common law decisionmaking in which the court brought the law into conformity with reason and common sense," continued O'Connor. Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer wrote separate dissents. Justices Clarence Thomas, Stevens and Breyer joined Justice Scalia's dissent.

Nelson v. Adams USA, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

99-502

Petitioner

Nelson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Adams USA, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

529 U.S. 460 (2000)

Argued

Monday, March 27, 2000

Decided

Tuesday, April 25, 2000

Advocates

Debra J. Dixon (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Jack A. Wheat (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

The Ohio Cellular Products Corporation (OCP) sued Adams USA, Inc. (Adams), for patent infringement. After the District Court ruled in Adams' favor by dismissing the suit, Adams motioned for attorney fees and costs. In granting the motion, the court found that Donald Nelson, who was at all relevant times president and sole shareholder of OCP, had acted in a way that constituted inequitable conduct chargeable to OCP. Fearing it would be unable to collect the award, Adams moved under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to amend its pleading to add Nelson, personally, as a party from whom fees could be collected. Additionally, Adams asked the court, under Rule 59(e), to amend the judgment to make Nelson immediately liable for the fee award. The District Court granted the motion in full. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision simultaneously making Nelson a party and subjecting him to judgement.

Question

May a party, who has been made a party to a civil action, be simultaneously made personally liable?

Conclusion

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

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that the District Court erred in amending the judgment immediately upon permitting the amendment of the pleading. Justice Ginsburg wrote for the Court that "[d]ue process, as reflected in Rule 15 as well as Rule 12, required that Nelson be given an opportunity to respond and contest his personal liability for the award after he was made a party and before the entry of judgment against him." Thus, the District Court's granting of Adams' motion to simultaneously make Nelson a party and personally liable violated due process.

City of West Covina v. Perkins

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

97-1230

Petitioner

City of West Covina

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Perkins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

525 U.S. 234 (1999)

Argued

Tuesday, November 3, 1998

Decided

Wednesday, January 13, 1999

Advocates

Patrick S. Smith (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Jeffrey S. Sutton (For Ohio et al., as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioner)

David D. Lawrence (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Police officers of the city of West Covina lawfully seized Perkins Lawrence's personal property from his home. The officers left a notice form specifying the facts of the search, its date, the searching agency, the date of the warrent, the issuing judge and his court, the persons to be contacted for information, and an itemized list of the property seized. The officers did not leave the search warrant number. Lawrence filed suit after attempts to obtain the seized property failed. The District Court ultimately ruled in favor of the city. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court. It held that the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required that Lawrence be provided a detailed notice of state procedures for the return of seized property and the information to be able to invoke the procedures, along with the information he was already provided. This meant the search warrant number must be furnished or at least the method for obtaining it.

Question

Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require officers who seize someone's property lawfully to provide the owner with state procedures for the property's return?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for City of West Covina, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

No. In a decision authored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process clause does not require police officers to provide property owners with information on how to recover their property in a lawful seizure. The Due Process clause only requires that officers inform property owners that something they own has been seized. Justice Kennedy said the property owner could turn to public sources to learn about the procedures available.

Richards v. Jefferson County

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:53 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

95-386

Petitioner

Richards

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jefferson County

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

517 U.S. 793 (1996)

Argued

Tuesday, March 26, 1996

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1996

Advocates

William J. Baxley (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

William M. Slaughter (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Jason Richards and others, who are privately employed in Jefferson County, filed a state court class action suit claiming that the county's occupation tax violates the Federal and Alabama Constitutions. The Alabama trial court found that their state claims were barred by a prior adjudication, Bedingfield v. Jefferson County. The unsuccessful Bedingfield adjudication of the tax was brought by Birmingham's acting finance director and the city itself, consolidated with a suit by three county taxpayers. However, the court found that their federal claims had not been decided in that case. On appeal, the county argued that the federal claims were also barred. The State Supreme Court agreed, concluding that the doctrine of res judicata applied because Richard and others were adequately represented in the Bedingfield action.

Question

May the Alabama residents, who claim that the Jefferson County occupation tax violates the Federal and Alabama Constitutions, proceed with their class action suit in court in light of a prior, similar adjudication?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In a unanimous decision, authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that because Richards and others received neither notice of, nor sufficient representation in, the Bedingfield litigation, that adjudication, as a matter of federal due process, may not bind them and thus cannot bar them from challenging an allegedly unconstitutional deprivation of their property.

United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:23:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-1180

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

James Daniel Good Real Property et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Opinion

510 U.S. 43 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, October 6, 1993

Decided

Monday, December 13, 1993

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Christopher J. Yuen (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for James Daniel Good Real Property, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Fdic v. Mallen

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-82

Appellee

Mallen

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Fdic

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 230 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, March 22, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1988

Advocates

Mary E. Curtin (on behalf of the appellees)

John C. Harrison (on behalf of the appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Fdic, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 1818

None

Tulsa Professional Collection Services v. Pope

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1961

Appellee

Pope

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Tulsa Professional Collection Services

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 478 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, March 2, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, April 19, 1988

Advocates

Randall E. Rose (on behalf of the Appellant)

Phillip K. Smith (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Tulsa Professional Collection Services, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1430

Petitioner

Peralta

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Heights Medical Center, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 80 (1988)

Argued

Monday, November 30, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1988

Advocates

Jack E. Urquhart (on behalf of the Appellees)

Bruce Ian Schimmel (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Peralta, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Brock v. Roadway Express, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1530

Appellee

Roadway Express, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Brock

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 252 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, December 3, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, April 22, 1987

Advocates

Michael C. Towers (on behalf of Appellee)

Andrew J. Pincus (on behalf of Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

Split Vote

None

Regents Of University Of Michigan v. Ewing

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1273

Petitioner

Regents Of University Of Michigan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ewing

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

474 U.S. 214 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, October 8, 1985

Decided

Thursday, December 12, 1985

Advocates

Michael M. Conway (on behalf of the Respondent)

Roderick K. Daane (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Regents Of University Of Michigan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Mennonite Board Of Missions v. Adams

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-11

Appellee

Adams

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mennonite Board Of Missions

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

462 U.S. 791 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, March 30, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, June 22, 1983

Advocates

William J. Cohen (on behalf of the Appellant)

Robert W. Miller (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mennonite Board Of Missions, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Greene v. Lindsey

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-341

Appellee

Lindsey

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Greene

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 444 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, February 23, 1982

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1982

Advocates

Robert Frederick Smith (on behalf of the Appellees)

William L. Hoge, III (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-5950

Appellee

Zimmerman Brush Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Logan

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 422 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, October 14, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1982

Advocates

Jay A. Canel (on behalf of the Appellees)

Gary H. Palm (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Texaco, Inc. v. Short

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-965

Appellee

Short

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Texaco, Inc.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 80-1018

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 516 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, October 6, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, January 12, 1982

Advocates

John L. Carroll (on behalf of Appellants)

Verner P. Partenheimer, Jr. (on behalf of Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Short, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

O'bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:13 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1318

Petitioner

O'bannon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Town Court Nursing Center

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 773 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, November 6, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 23, 1980

Advocates

Nathan L. Posner (on behalf of the Respondents)

Norman J. Watkins (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard A. Allen (on behalf of the Respondent Secretary of HEW, supporting Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for O'bannon, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Califano v. Yamasaki

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1511

Petitioner

Califano

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yamasaki

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 682 (1979)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, June 20, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Califano, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

None

Mackey v. Montrym

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-69

Appellee

Montrym

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mackey

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 1 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, November 29, 1978

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Barry v. Barchi

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-803

Appellee

Barchi

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Barry

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 55 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, November 7, 1978

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Secy. Of Pub. Welf. v. Institutionalized Juveniles

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1715

Appellee

Institutionalized Juveniles

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Secy. Of Pub. Welf.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 640 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, October 10, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 20, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Secy. Of Pub. Welf., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

New Motor Vehicle Bd. Of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-837

Petitioner

Orrin W. Fox Co.

Respondent

New Motor Vehicle Bd. Of Cal.

Consolidation

No. 77-849

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 96 (1978)

Argued

October 3-4, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, December 5, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for New Motor Vehicle Bd. Of Cal., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Parham v. J. R.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1690

Appellee

J. R.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Parham

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 584 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1977

Reargued:

Tuesday, October 10, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 20, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Board Of Curators, Univ. Of Mo. v. Horowitz

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-695

Petitioner

Board Of Curators, Univ. Of Mo.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Horowitz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 78 (1978)

Argued

Monday, November 7, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, March 1, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Board Of Curators, Univ. Of Mo., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Smith v. Organization Of Foster Families

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-180

Petitioner

Organization Of Foster Families

Respondent

Smith

Consolidation

No. 76-183

No. 76-5193

No. 76-5200

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 816 (1977)

Argued

Monday, March 21, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Dixon v. Love

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:12 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1513

Appellee

Love

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Dixon

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 105 (1977)

Argued

March 1-2, 1977

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Dixon, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Ingraham v. Wright

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:38 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-6527

Petitioner

Ingraham

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wright

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 651 (1977)

Argued

November 2-3, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, April 19, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Wright, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

None

Commissioner v. Shapiro

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:21 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-744

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shapiro

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 614 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, November 5, 1975

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Shapiro, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Laing v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1808

Petitioner

Laing

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 74-75

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

423 U.S. 161 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, January 21, 1975

Reargued:

Wednesday, October 15, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Laing, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Goss v. Lopez

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-898

Appellee

Lopez

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Goss

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

419 U.S. 565 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, October 16, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, January 22, 1975

Facts of the Case

Nine students at two high schools and one junior high school in Columbus, Ohio, were given 10-day suspensions from school. The school principals did not hold hearings for the affected students before ordering the suspensions, and Ohio law did not require them to do so. The principals' actions were challenged, and a federal court found that the students' rights had been violated. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question

Did the imposition of the suspensions without preliminary hearings violate the students' Due Process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that because Ohio had chosen to extend the right to an education to its citizens, it could not withdraw that right "on grounds of misconduct absent fundamentally fair procedures to determine whether the misconduct ha[d] occurred." The Court held that Ohio was constrained to recognize students' entitlements to education as property interests protected by the Due Process Clause that could not be taken away without minimum procedures required by the Clause. The Court found that students facing suspension should at a minimum be given notice and afforded some kind of hearing.

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:08 +0000

Location

Metropolitan Edison

501 Parkway Blvd York PA 17404

York, PA 17404

United States

39° 58' 10.812" N, 76° 44' 24.9252" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-5845

Petitioner

Catherine Jackson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Metropolitan Edison Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

419 U.S. 345 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, October 15, 1974

Decided

Monday, December 23, 1974

Advocates

Jack Greenberg (argued the cause for the petitioner)

Thomas M. Debevoise (argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Catherine Jackson had received electricity from Metropolitan Edison at her home. Her service was terminated in September 1970 due to a lack of payment. Jackson opened another account under the name of another resident, James Dodson. Metropolitan Edison investigated her residence on October 6, 1971 and service was again terminated without notice on October 11. Jackson sued in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. She sought damages for the termination and an injunction to continue her service. The court dismissed her suit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

Question

Did Metropolitan Edison's termination of Jackson's electrical service qualify as "state action" under the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Metropolitan Edison Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice William H. Rehnquist, the court affirmed the Third Circuit and held that Metropolitan Edison's termination of Jackson's service did not qualify as state action. Rehnquist reiterated that private actions are "immune from the restrictions of the Fourteenth Amendment." The Court acknowledged that Metropolitan Edison was heavily regulated by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, but this regulation did not make Metropolitan Edison part of the state. Additionally, the Court cited Nebbia v. New York in declining to rule on whether all actions by businesses that provided essential public services qualified as state action.

Dillard v. Industrial Comm'n

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-5412

Appellee

Industrial Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Dillard

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 783 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, March 26, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, May 15, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bell v. Burson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:12 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

5586

Petitioner

Bell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Burson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 535 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, March 23, 1971

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Wisconsin v. Constantineau

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Constantineau

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Wisconsin

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 433 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, December 10, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, January 19, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Wheeler v. Montgomery

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Montgomery

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Wheeler

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

397 U.S. 280 (1970)

Argued

Monday, October 13, 1969

Decided

Monday, March 23, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Goldberg v. Kelly

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

Location

Manhattan Municipal Building

1 Centre Street New York NY 10007

New York, NY 10007

United States

40° 42' 46.6164" N, 74° 0' 13.0176" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Kelly

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Goldberg

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

397 U.S. 254 (1970)

Argued

Monday, October 13, 1969

Decided

Monday, March 23, 1970

Facts of the Case

John Kelly, acting on behalf of New York residents receiving financial assistance either under the federally-assisted program for Families with Dependent Children or under New York State's home relief program, challenged the constitutionality of procedures for notice and termination of such aid. Although originally offering no official notice or opportunity for hearings to those whose aid was scheduled for termination, the State of New York implemented a hearing procedure after commencement of Kelly's litigation.

Question

Does a state's termination of public aid, without affording the beneficiary a hearing prior to termination, violate notions of procedural due process as set out in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that states must afford public aid recipients a pre-termination evidentiary hearing before discontinuing their aid. Noting that welfare benefits are statutory entitlements, rather than "privileges," the Court weighed welfare recipients' need for procedural due process against the competing considerations of the possible harm they might suffer from discontinuation and the government's interest in summary adjudication. The Court concluded that state interests in conserving administrative costs are not sufficient to override public aid recipients' interest in procedural due process. With respect to New York's newly implemented hearings, the Court found them deficient insofar as they did not permit recipients to present evidence, be heard orally in person or through counsel, or cross-examine adverse witnesses.

Thorpe v. Housing Authority

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Thorpe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Housing Authority

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 268 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, October 23, 1968

Decided

Monday, January 13, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Pate v. Robinson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

382

Petitioner

Pate

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Robinson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 375 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, January 26, 1966

Decided

Monday, March 7, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Pate, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Armstrong v. Manzo

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

149

Petitioner

Armstrong

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Manzo

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 545 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, March 9, 1965

Decided

Tuesday, April 27, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ungar v. Sarafite

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

167

Petitioner

Ungar

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sarafite

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 575 (1964)

Argued

Monday, February 24, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 30, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Willner v. Committee On Character

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

140

Petitioner

Willner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Committee On Character

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

373 U.S. 96 (1963)

Argued

Thursday, February 21, 1963

Decided

Monday, May 13, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Willner, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Schroeder v. City Of New York

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

City Of New York

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Schroeder

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

371 U.S. 208 (1962)

Argued

Thursday, November 15, 1962

Decided

Monday, December 17, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

In Re Green

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

312

Petitioner

In Re Green

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 689 (1962)

Argued

Monday, April 9, 1962

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for In Re Green, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Oyler v. Boles

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Oyler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Boles

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 57

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 448 (1962)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1961

Decided

Monday, February 19, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Cafeteria Workers v. Mcelroy

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Cafeteria Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mcelroy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

367 U.S. 886 (1961)

Argued

Thursday, January 12, 1961

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lambert v. California

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

California

Respondent

Lambert

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

355 U.S. 225 (1957)

Argued

Wednesday, April 3, 1957

Reargued:

October 16-17, 1957

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Walker v. Hutchinson City

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Hutchinson City

Respondent

Walker

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1956-1957)

Opinion

352 U.S. 112 (1956)

Argued

October 15-16, 1956

Decided

Monday, December 10, 1956

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Walker, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Covey v. Town Of Somers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:29 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

380

Appellee

Town Of Somers

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Covey

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

351 U.S. 141 (1956)

Argued

Thursday, March 29, 1956

Decided

Monday, May 7, 1956

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Covey, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None