Volume 394 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 394 of the United States Reports:

from pages 11-13 intentionally omitted] Archibald Cox, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. Victor A. Sachse, Baton Rouge, La., and J. B. Miller, New Orleans, La., for defendants.

Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court overturned the disorderly conduct charges against Dick Gregory and others for peaceful demonstrations in Chicago.

from 132 intentionally omitted] Richard J. MacLaury, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants. Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for appellee. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 Tucson, Arizona, has only two daily newspapers of general circulation, the Star and the Citizen. The Citizen is the oldest, having been founded before 1900, and is an evening paper published six times a week.

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court struck down a Birmingham, Alabama ordinance that prohibited citizens from holding parades and processions on city streets without first obtaining a permit.

from 166 intentionally omitted] Sol. Gen. Erwin N. Griswold, for respondent. Edward Bennett Williams, Washington, D.C., for petitioners Alderman and Ivanov. Charles Danzig, Newark, N.J., for petitioner Butenko.

Kaufman v. United States, 394 U.S. 217 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 1969. In a majority opinion authored by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., the Court held that criminal defendants could bring claims that evidence against them was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution in a collateral attack under the federal habeas corpus statute. In doing so, the Court overruled the contrary decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which had held that Kaufman could not raise his Fourth Amendment claim in a collateral attack.

from 287 intentionally omitted] J. Stanley Pottinger and J. Thomas Rosch, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Derald E. Granberg, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. Jerome Feit, Washington, D.C., for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

Held: with one judge dissenting, that the admission of testimony concerning the statements petitioner had made without the above warnings was not precluded by Miranda . We disagree and hold that the use of these admissions obtained in the absence of the required warnings was a flat violation of the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment as construed in Miranda .

Held: however, that a different result was compelled now that the amendment to Rule 23 abolished the distinctions between true and spurious class actions. The court held that because aggregation was permitted in some class actions, it must now be permitted in all class actions under the new Rule.

from 359 intentionally omitted] Charles Morgan, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for appellants. L. Drew Redden, Birmingham, Ala., for appellees. Perry Hubbard, Tuscaloosa, Ala., for appellee, Judge James Dennis Herndon. Louis F. Claiborne, Washington, D.C., for United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

Held: the Constitution leaves to the States and to the people all these questions concerning the various advantages and disadvantages of admitting certain types of evidence. Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554 (1967); Michelson v. United States, 335 U. S. 469 (1948).

Held: require that the defendant have a monopoly or even a dominant position throughout the market for the tying product. Our tie-in cases have made unmistakably clear that the economic power over the tying product can be sufficient even though the power falls far short of dominance and even though the power exists only with respect to some of the buyers in the market.

Held: 394 U.S., at 531, 89 S.Ct., at 1239, that 'the command of Art. I, § 2, that States create congressional districts which provide equal representation for equal numbers of people permits only the limited population variances which are unavoidable despite a good-faith effort to achieve absolute equality, or for which justification is shown.' The general command, of course, is to equalize population in all the districts…

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.

Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a New York state law making it a crime "publicly [to] mutilate, deface, defile, or defy, trample upon, or cast contempt upon either by words or act [any flag of the United States]" was, in part, unconstitutional because it prohibited speech against the flag. The Court left for a later day the question of whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional to prohibit, without reference to the utterance of words, the burning of the flag (see Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman).

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated state durational residency requirements for public assistance and helped establish a fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law. Shapiro was a part of a set of three welfare cases all heard during the 1968–69 term by the Supreme Court, alongside Harrell v. Tobriner and Smith v. Reynolds. Additionally, Shapiro, King v. Smith (1968), and Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) comprise the "Welfare Cases", a set of successful Supreme Court cases that dealt with welfare. Shapiro was not about the issue of welfare per se, but rather about the restrictions to the right to travel and possible violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Held: that the language used in § 1341 requires that respondent be allowed a deduction for the full amount it refunded to its customers.

Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case that affirmed the legality of deceptive interrogation tactics by the police.

from 760 intentionally omitted] Sol. Gen. Erwin N. Griswold for petitioner. Quentin O. Young, Boston, Mass., for respondent.

McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago, 394 U.S. 802 (1969), was a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that an Illinois law that denied absentee ballots to inmates awaiting trial did not violate their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court declined to apply strict scrutiny, and found that the distinctions drawn by the law were rational. The Court particularly noted that the inmates had not shown they could not vote, but rather only that they could not receive absentee ballots.

Held: there is no possibility of granting any relief to appellants and that the appeal should be dismissed. But while the 1968 election is over, the burden which MacDougall v. Green, supra, allowed to be placed on the nomination of candidates for statewide offices remains and controls future elections, as long as Illinois maintains her present system as she has done since 1935.

Held: however, because the defendant became a fugitive, and petitioner was sentenced finally by another judge to 20 years. At the suggestion of the Solicitor General, and after an indepe dent examination of the record, we concluded that a 'due regard for the fair administration of justice' required a reversal of three counts of a five-count indictment.

Held: American citizens can be required to apply to the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control for a license in order to receive magazines, films, or other publications sent to them from mainland China, North Korea, or North Vietnam.

SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. is a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which articulated standards for a number of aspects of insider trading law under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. In particular, it set out standards for materiality of inside information, effective disclosure of such information, and what constitutes a "misleading" statement. Texas Gulf Sulphur represented the first time a federal court held that insider trading violated federal securities law and remained the leading case on insider trading for a decade. Over time, the U.S. Supreme Court embraced some of its holdings while rejecting others. The case continues to receive significant scholarly attention.

Held: American citizens can be required to apply to the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control for a license in order to receive magazines, films, or other publications sent to them from mainland China, North Korea, or North Vietnam.