Volume 389 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 389 of the United States Reports:

Beecher v. Alabama, 389 U.S. 35 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that eliciting a confession from a suspect while he was under the influence of morphine and recovering from a gunshot wound violated the Due Process Clause.

from pages 128-129 intentionally omitted] Evan L. Schwab, Seattle, Wash., for petitioners. Stephen C. Way, Olympia, Wash., for respondents.

Held: was simply to restrict claims to boundaries that had, at one time or another, been approved by Congress. 5 25 On the basis of this understanding of the term 'as it existed,' we held in our prior opinion that the present maritime boundary of the State of Texas is defined by the Republic of Texas Boundary Act of 1836, 6 because that Act was approved by Congress pursuant to its 1845 Resolution of Annexation of Texas. 7…

Held: so far as we can ascertain, that a clear majority of all the legally constituted members thereof shall concur or no valid judgment may be entered except such as may follow no decision.' But even on the doubtful premise that there is an exception in the case of courts, 7 Frischer itself recognized, as we have seen, that the exception does not apply to administrative agencies with quasi-judicial functions.

from pages 191-192 intentionally omitted] Lucian Y. Ray, Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioners. Alan S. Rosenthal, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Mr. Justice FORTAS delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 Two cases, consolidated by the trial court and raising related issues, are here involved.

Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a federal court cannot use the abstention doctrine to avoid a constitutional issue merely because it determines that the plaintiff is unlikely to receive the relief they requested. The underlying case was about an anonymous handbill law that the Court believed was overbroad.

United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the United States government cannot deprive the people of constitutional rights - in this case, freedom of association - even in the interests of national security.

Held: however, that the Borax case should not be applied here because that case involved no question as to accretions. While this is true, the case did involve the question as to what rights were conveyed by the federal grant and decided that the extent of ownership under the federal grant is governed by federal law.

United States v. Correll, 389 U.S. 299 (1967), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that in order for the taxpayer to be allowed to deduct the cost of his meals incurred while on a business trip, the trip must have required him to stop for sleep or rest.

Held: appellants attempted to bypass the Board by suing in the District Court. 2 Appellants' complaint in the District Court alleged that the Communist-front registration provisions of the Act were unconstitutional. 3 The complaint also alleged that the 'very pendency of these administrative proceedings * * * has resulted and will continue to result * * * in immediate and irreparable injury to fundamental constitutional…

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court redefined what constitutes a "search" or "seizure" with regard to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ruling expanded the Fourth Amendment's protections from an individual's "persons, houses, papers, and effects," as specified in the Constitution's text, to include any areas where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy." The reasonable expectation of privacy standard, now known as the Katz test, was formulated in a concurring opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan II.

Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated an Oregon statute for unconstitutionally intruding into the federal realm of foreign affairs even though the statute did not conflict with any federal treaty or statute.

Held: and, on June 9, 1967, following our remand in the Penn-Central merger case, the Commission made findings and entered its order requiring N & W to include the three roads in its system under terms it prescribed. 61 Appellants are the N & W, the B & M, and a number of E—L bondholders.

Held: safely if unhappily, in jail. In contrast with petitioner’s need for an attorney is the absence of any legitimate state interest in forbidding petitioner to call one. I believe the issue thus posed is both important and certain to recur. I would grant certiorari to resolve that issue now.

Mora v. McNamara, 389 U.S. 934 (1967), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court was asked to rule on the case of a conscientious objector who claimed that the U.S. war against Vietnam was an illegal war of aggression. In this case, the court cited only the Kellogg-Briand Pact, Article 39 of the United Nations Charter and the Treaty of London as the relevant body of international law regarding cases of war.