Volume 384 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 384 of the United States Reports:

from pages 35-37 intentionally omitted] Thomas F. Daly, New York City, and Jack Goodman, Albany, N.Y., for appellants. Ruth Kessler Toch, Albany, N.Y., for appellees. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 This appeal draws in question certain provisions of Chapter 531, 1964 Session Laws of New York, which worked substantial changes in the State's Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.

from pages 73-74 intentionally omitted] Bertram T. Kanbara, Honolulu, Hawaii, and Dennis G. Lyons, Washington, D.C., for appellant in No. 318 and appellees in Nos. 323 and 409. Yukio Naito, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellants in No. 409 and appellees in Nos. 318 and 323. James T. Funaki, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellants in No. 323 and appellees in Nos. 318 and 409. Robert G. Dodge and Masaji Marumoto, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellees in all three cases.

Held: nonetheless, that there had been no ratification although we noted that had it made some public statements condemning the violence 'our result would undoubtedly be firmer.' Id., at 742, 86 S.Ct. at 1147. Moreover, petitioner specifically denied respondent's allegations of agency in its answer filed shortly after the suit was begun.

Held: however, that residence had been redefined by the expanded general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) (1964 ed.), passed in 1948.

from pages 238-240 intentionally omitted] Paul Bender, Washington, D.C., for the United States, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court. William B. Devaney, Washington, D.C., for Florida East Coast Ry. Co. Neal Rutledge, Miami, Fla., for Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, AFL—CIO and others.

Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966), was a United States Supreme Court case that examined a defendant's right to a fair trial as required by the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In particular, the Court sought to determine whether or not Sam Sheppard, the defendant, was denied fair trial for the second-degree murder of his wife, of which he was convicted, because of the trial judge's failure to protect him sufficiently "from the massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution".

Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373 (1966), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that crimes carrying possible penalties up to six months imprisonment do not require a jury trial if they otherwise qualify as petty offenses.

United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Company, 384 U.S. 394 (1966), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "(w)hen an administrative agency is acting in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate, the courts have not hesitated to apply res judicata to enforce repose." Utah Construction established a two-part test to determine whether res judicata effect should be given to an administrative determination. First, the agency proceeding must be examined to determine whether the agency was "acting in a judicial capacity" and whether the parties had "an adequate opportunity to litigate" the issues before the agency.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them when they are in custody, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence against them at their trial. Specifically, the Court held that under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.

from pages 563-565 intentionally omitted] Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for appellant in No. 73 and appellee in Nos. 74—77. John F. Sonnett, New York City, for appellant in No. 74 and appellees in No. 73. Macdonald Flinn, New York City, for appellant in No. 75 and appellees in No. 73. John W. Drye, Jr., New York City, for appellant in No. 76 and appellees in No. 73. J. Francis Hayden, New York City, for appellant in No. 77.

FTC v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597 (1966), is a 1966 decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) may sue in federal court to obtain a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo against the consummation of a merger that the agency persuasively contends violates the antitrust laws.

Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the power of Congress, pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, to enact laws that enforce and interpret provisions of the Constitution.

Held: there is no way in which it can be determined whether the factual recitals of the indictment charged a crime under § 192 — that is, a refusal to answer questions *705 “pertinent to the inquiry,” and within the legislative competence of Congress. 3 Petitioner was thereafter re-indicted.

from pages 719-720 intentionally omitted] Stanford Shmukler, Philadelphia, Pa., M. Gene Haeberle, Camden, N.J., for petitioners. Norman Heine, Camden, N.J., for respondent. [Amicus Curiae from pages 720-721 intentionally omitted] Duane R. Nedrud, for National District Attorneys Ass'n, amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body. Until Schmerber, the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects. Likewise, the Court had not yet clarified whether blood evidence taken against the wishes of a criminal suspect may be used against that suspect in the course of a criminal prosecution.

from pages 780-781 intentionally omitted] George K. McPherson, Jr., J. Robert Sparks, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner. Anthony G. Amsterdam, Washington, D.C., for respondents. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 This case presents questions concerning the scope of a century-old federal law that permits a defendant in state court proceedings to transfer his case to a federal trial court under certain conditions.

from pages 808-809 intentionally omitted] Hardy Lott, Greenwood, Miss., for petitioner in No. 471 and respondent in No. 649. Benjamin E. Smith, New Orleans, La., for respondents in No. 471 and petitioners in No. 649. Louis F. Claiborne, Washington, D.C., for United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.