Volume 386 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 386 of the United States Reports:

Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal "harmless error" rule must apply, instead of equivalent state rules, for reviewing trials where federally-protected rights had been violated. Further, a constitutional error in a criminal case cannot be held harmless unless it was harmless "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Held: however, that the prosecution could not be charged with withholding reputation evidence since the defense itself had ample knowledge of the promiscuous conduct of the prosecuting witness.

Held: appellants had not done. At. that time, of course, Swann v. Adams, 385 U. S. 440 , had not been announced. Under that case it is quite clear that unless satisfactorily justified by the court or by the evidence of record, population variances of the size and significance evident here are sufficient to invalidate an apportionment plan.

Held: this section 'bows in the direction of state law.' 359 F.2d, at 114.

from pages 171-172 intentionally omitted] David E. Feller, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. Allan R. Browne, Kansas City, Mo., for respondent. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 On February 13, 1962, Benjamin Owens filed this class action against petitioners, as officers and representatives of the National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers 1 and of its Kansas City Local No. 12 (the Union), in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri.

Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the Speedy Trial Clause of the United States Constitution in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that in criminal prosecutions "...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial" In this case, a defendant was tried for trespassing and the initial jury could not reach a verdict. The prosecutor neither dismissed nor reinstated the case but used an unusual procedure to leave it open, potentially indefinitely. Klopfer argued that this denied him his right to a speedy trial. In deciding in his favor, the Supreme Court incorporated the speedy trial protections of the Sixth Amendment against the states.

Held: was to allow the *497 claim, even though untimely. In Williams v. Rice, 30 F. 2d 814 , an estate, presumably without assets, was reopened when new assets were discovered. The question was again whether creditors who had not filed timely claims, should - be allowed to prove their claims.

from pages 503-504 intentionally omitted] Edwin J. McDermott, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner. David Rose, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.

from pages 523-524 intentionally omitted] Otto R. Skopil, Jr., Salem, Or., and John Gordon Gearin, Portland, Or., for petitioners. Nick Chaivoe and James Griswold, Portland Or., for respondents. Mr. Justice FORTAS delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 Early one September morning in 1964, a Greyhound bus proceeding northward through Shasta County, California, collided with a southbound pickup truck. Two of the passengers aboard the bus were killed.

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court first introduced the justification for qualified immunity for police officers from being sued for civil rights violations under Section 1983, by arguing that "[a] policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he had probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does."

from pages 612-614 intentionally omitted] Charles B. Mahin, Chicago, Ill., for petitioners in No. 110 and respondents in No. 111. Dominick L., Manoli, Washington, D.C., for respondent in No. 110 and petitioner in No. 111. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 Under the Landrum-Griffin Act amendments enacted in 1959, 73 Stat. 542, § 8(b) (4)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 141, became § 8(b)(4)(B) and § 8(e) was added.

Held: as an aspect of its finding that § 8(b)(4)(B) was not violated by Local 22's activities, that the clause was valid. 357 F.2d, at 188—189. 2 A mitered fitting is described by the president of Thorpe Company as 'an insulation item that is used to cover something other than a straight piece of pipe in a pipe line, and this is made by taking standard insulation pipe covering and cutting it on a bias or miter and then…

Held: an admiralty plaintiff may be awarded counsel fees as an item of compensatory damages (not as a separate cost to be taxed). Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527 , 82 S.Ct. 997, 8 L.Ed.2d 88 (1962). And in a civil contempt action occasioned by willful disobedience of a court order an award of attorney's fees may be authorized as part of the fine to be levied on the defendant.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a court-appointed attorney filed a motion to withdraw from the appeal of a criminal case because of his belief that any grounds for appeal were frivolous.

In National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, 386 U.S. 753 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a mail order reseller was not required to collect sales tax unless it had some physical contact with the state.

Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 (1967), was a May 8, 1967 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States, widely regarded as the end of American censorship of written fiction. Robert Redrup was a Times Square newsstand clerk who sold two of William Hamling's Greenleaf Classics paperback pulp sex novels, Lust Pool and Shame Agent, to a plainclothes police officer. He was tried and convicted in 1965.

Held: with little discussion and no citation to authority, that “[l]ying to a judge is certainly misbehavior in the court’s presence and therefore punishable under section 401.” 349 F. 2d 116, 117 . Petitioner was retried summarily before a different judge and again convicted of contempt of court, apparently oh the basis of the Court of Appeals’ prior holding that “lying to a judge” in and of itself constitutes contempt.