Volume 387 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 387 of the United States Reports:

Held: however, that this doctrine is less absolute, although applicable, when applied to officers or employees of a legislative body, rather than to legislators themselves.

from pages 97-98 intentionally omitted] Charles S. Rhyne, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Truman Hobbs, Montgomery, Ala., for appellees. No. 491: Stanley S. Corwin, Greenport, N.Y., for appellants. Frederick Block, Port Jefferson Station, N.Y., and Richard C. Cahn, Huntington, N.Y., for appellees. Nos. 624, 491: Francis X. Beytagh, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, for the United States, as amicus curiae, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.

Boutilier v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 387 U.S. 118 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld Clive Michael Boutilier's deportation from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 due to his history of homosexual activities. The Act itself did not specify homosexuality among its exclusion criteria, but the Court held that Congress clearly intended that a homosexual individual be excluded from entry into the United States as one "afflicted with [a] psychopathic personality." The decision was abrogated by the Immigration Act of 1990, which rejected sexual orientation as a basis for excluding an individual from immigration.

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that drug companies were not prohibited by the ripeness doctrine from challenging a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation requiring a prescription drug's generic name to appear on all related printed materials. The government argued that the case was not ripe because the regulation had yet to be enforced. That argument failed as the Court found the issues to be fit for judicial resolution, and that the drug companies would experience substantial hardship if denied a pre-enforcement challenge to the statute.

Toilet Goods Association, Inc. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 158 (1967), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. It held that judicial review of a regulation's validity was inappropriate because the controversy was not ripe for adjudication. Since it was not clear whether or not an inspection would be ordered and the reasons had not been given by the Commissioner to justify his order, no primary conduct was affected and so no irremediable adverse consequences flowed from requiring a later challenge to the regulation by a manufacturer, who refused to allow inspection.

from pages 202-203 intentionally omitted] ThurgoodMarshall, Sol. Gen., for petitioner. Daniel J. McCauley, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent. Held: in S.E.C. v. Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co., 359 U.S. 65 , 79 S.Ct. 618, 3 L.Ed.2d 640 (VALIC), to be subject to the Securities Act.

Held: and findings and conclusions made, to determine the content and pertinence to this case of any such recorded conversations. Accordingly, we grant the petition for a writ of cer-tiorari as to each of the petitioners, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily. The U.S. government had attempted to revoke the citizenship of Beys Afroyim, a man born in Poland, because he had cast a vote in an Israeli election after becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court decided that Afroyim's right to retain his citizenship was guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In so doing, the Court struck down a federal law mandating loss of U.S. citizenship for voting in a foreign election—thereby overruling one of its own precedents, Perez v.

Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that 'mere evidence' may be seized and held as evidence in a trial, allowing such evidence obtained in a search to be used. This finding reversed previous Supreme Court decisions such as Boyd v. United States which had held that search warrants "may not be used as a means of gaining access to a man's house or office and papers solely for the purpose of making search to secure evidence to be used against him in a criminal or penal proceeding".

from pages 326-328 intentionally omitted] Arthur J. Cerra and Hugh B. Cox, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Howard J. Trienens, George L. Saunders, Jr., Chicago, Ill., Calvin L. Rampton, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Cyril M. Saroyan, San Francisco, Cal., for the appellees.

Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent that held that a state could not authorize invidious discrimination by private landlords without entangling itself in the ensuing discriminatory private decisions. Thus, the state constitutional amendment by referendum purporting to authorize landlord freedom was unconstitutional.

American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., 387 U.S. 397 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission has authority under the Interstate Commerce Act to promulgate railroad regulations with common carrier provisions.

from pages 428-429 intentionally omitted] Louis F. Claiborne, Northcutt Ely, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. Richard Solomon and Hugh Smith, Washington, D.C., for respondents.

Held: even in diversity cases, where the federal interest consists at most in affording a 'neutral' forum, that the judgments of state trial courts must in all cases be taken as conclusive statements of state law; 5 apart from a series of cases decided at the 1940 Term, 6 the Court has consistently acknowledged that the character both of the state proceeding and of the state court itself may be relevant in determining a…

from pages 485-486 intentionally omitted] William H. Dempsey, Jr., Washington, D.C., for appellants. Thomas D. Barr and Robert S. Rifkind, New York City, for appellees.

Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case that overruled a previous case and established the ability of a resident to deny entry to a building inspector without a warrant.

See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 523 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case that overruled a previous case (Frank v. Maryland, 1959) and established the ability of a commercial entity to deny entry to a fire inspector without a warrant or probable cause. It is a companion case to Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco.