Volume 401 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 401 of the United States Reports:

In re Stolar, 401 U.S. 23 (1971), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that requiring bar applicants, like Martin Stolar, to list every organization that they belonged to since age 17 is a violation of the First Amendment.

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that United States federal courts were required to abstain from hearing any civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim. The case is the namesake of Younger abstention.

Held: in reliance on Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157 , 63 S.Ct. 877, 87 L.Ed. 1324 (1943), that this claim could be effectively presented to the New York courts and therefore did not call for federal intervention at this stage.

Held: first, that the original suit was properly within the general federal-question jurisdiction of the circuit court; second, that 'individuals who, as officers of the state, are clothed with some duty in regard to the enforcement of the laws of the state, and who threaten and are about to commence proceedings, either of a civil or criminal nature, to enforce against parties affected an unconstitutional act, violating…

Following a unit determination hearing, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional director concluded that three individuals were employees… Held: Under § 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act the NLRB is permitted to delegate to the regional director its authority to determine the appropriate bargaining unit, and plenary review by the NLRB of such determination is not mandatory. Pp. 141—143. 427 F.2d 114, affirmed. Louis Chandler, Boston, Mass., for petitioner.

As a condition precedent to making a defense against a summary eviction proceeding, Georgia law provided that the tenant post a surety… Held: These ensuing developments make it inappropriate for this Court to resolve the issues originally raised by appellants since it cannot be determined to what extent adjudication of those issues would be material to any further litigation ensuing on remand. Pp. 147—153. 225 Ga. 88, 166 S.E.2d 19, appeal dismissed and remanded. Michael D.

Appellants challenge, primarily on First Amendment vagueness and overbreadth grounds, the system for screening applicants for admission to the New York Bar. Held: The 'character and general fitness' requirement for admission to the New York Bar is not violative of the Constitution. Pp. 159—160. (3) The requirement has been construed by appellees to encompass no more than 'dishonorable conduct relevant to the legal profession.' P. 159.

Statement inadmissible against a defendant in the prosecution's case in chief because of lack of the procedural safeguards required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, may, if its trustworthiness satisfies legal standards, be used for impeachment purposes to attack the credibility of defendant's trial testimony. See Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503.

Respondent, who was a member of petitioner union, assaulted the business manager of his local for allegedly failing to refer him for a… Held: This action was within the competence of the District Court, as the issues here are whether respondent was denied rights guaranteed him by § 101(a)(5), and, if so, his consequent entitlement, pursuant to the federal statute, to damages for that denial, questions that are irrelevant to the legality of conduct under the National Labor…

Appellee, who claimed conscientious objector status, was refused representation by his attorney at the time of his personal appearance before his draft board on the basis of a Selective Service… Held: This Court has no jurisdiction of the appeal under the 'construction of the statute' provision since the interrelation of the regulation and the statute fell short of that required for the dismissal to have been based upon the construction of the statute. United States v.

Just before the 1960 New Hampshire Democratic primary election, petitioner newspaper published a column characterizing senatorial candidate Roy as a 'former small-time bootlegger.' Roy, who was not… Held: Publications concerning candidates for public office must be accorded at least as much protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments as those concerning occupants of public office. Pp. 270—272. 2.

In a discussion of 'police brutality and related private violence' in its 1961 Report, the Civil Rights Commission mentioned the case of Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492, and… Held: In the circumstances of this case the magazine did not engage in a 'falsification' sufficient in itself to sustain a jury finding of 'actual malice.' Pp. 284—292.

Petitioner newspaper published a false story that respondent, then a mayor and a candidate for county tax assessor, had been charged with perjury in federal court, and respondent sued for… Held: A charge of criminal conduct against a public official or a candidate for public office, no matter how remote in time or place, is always 'relevant to his fitness for office' for purposes of applying the New York Times rule of knowing falsehood or reckless disregard of the truth.

Petitioner coal mine operators brought this Sherman Act conspiracy action against respondent union alleging that respondent had expressly or… Held: The ordinary preponderance of the evidence standard is applicable in civil antitrust actions against labor unions except with respect to proving the authority of individual members, officers, or agents of a union to perform on behalf of the union the acts complained of, where the 'clear proof' standard applies. Pp. 307—311. 2.

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. is the caption of several United States Supreme Court patent–related decisions, the most significant of which is a 1969 patent–antitrust and patent–misuse decision concerning the levying of patent royalties on unpatented products.

Petitioner, then an Army corporal, was convicted in 1961 by a general courtmartial for violating Articles 134 and 120 of the Uniform Code… Held: Though some of the factors are present here that the Court relied on for its result in O'Callahan (the offenses were committed in peacetime within this country's territory, did not relate to the accused's military duties, were traditionally cognizable in civilian courts (which were available to try them), and did not directly flout…

A class action was formed representing female welfare recipients residing in Connecticut and wishing divorces, but prevented from bringing divorce suits by Connecticut statutes requiring payment of court fees and costs for service of process as a condition precedent to access to the courts. There was no dispute as to their inability to pay the court fees or costs.

Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held it is a violation of equal protection to convert a fine to jail time simply because the sentenced person cannot pay the fine.

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that established the basic legal framework for judicial review of the actions of administrative agencies. It substantially narrowed the Administrative Procedure Act's Section 701(a)(2) exception from judicial review. It also stands as a notable example of the power of litigation by grassroots citizen movements to block government action.

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), was a court case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 14, 1970. It concerned employment discrimination and the disparate impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. It is generally considered the first case of its type.

Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971), is a decision from the Supreme Court of the United States, adding constraints on the terms of conscientious objection resulting from draftees in the Selective Service.

Durham v. United States, 401 U.S. 481 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the death of a defendant accused of possessing a counterfeit bill pending a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court on direct review of the criminal conviction will cause the Court to vacate the conviction. In a per curiam opinion, the Court wrote that "[t]he unanimity of the lower federal courts" in vacating criminal convictions when the defendant dies during direct review was "impressive" and accordingly vacated the original conviction. In a one-sentence dissent, Justice Marshall, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Stewart, wrote that the Court should dismiss only the petition for writ of certiorari rather than the entire conviction, writing: MR.

The District Court for the District of Arizona did not have jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus application by an Air Force enlisted man in Arizona on temporary duty orders, as no custodian, neither the commanding officer at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia nor anyone in the chain of command, was a resident of Arizona. Pp. 488-492. Affirmed. Herbert Phillip Schlanger, pro se. Sol. Gen. Erwin N. Griswold, for respondents.

The State of Ohio filed a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint invoking the Court's original jurisdiction against defendant companies, incorporated in Michigan, Delaware and Canada, to abate an alleged nuisance resulting in the contamination and pollution of Lake Erie from the dumping of mercury into its tributaries.

The debtor corporation, kept in possession of its business by court order under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act, did not comply with… Held: Section 64(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Act, which is an overriding statement of federal policy on the question of priorities, clearly provides that the first priority in payments from bankrupt estates belongs to the costs and expenses of administration incurred in the bankruptcy proceedings. Pp. 515—517. 419 F.2d 1068, affirmed.

This case arises from the attempted joinder pursuant to 43 U.S.C. § 666 of the United States as a defendant in a proceeding in state court for the adjudication of water rights covering the Eagle… Held: Section 666(a) is an allinclusive statutory provision that subjects to general adjudication in state proceedings all rights of the United States to water within a particular State's jurisdiction regardless of how they were acquired.

In this companion case to United States v. District Court for Eagle County, 401 U.S. 520, 91 S.Ct. 998, 28 L.Ed.2d 278, the United States had been served with notice… Held: The state court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the reserved water rights of the United States. Eagle County, supra. P. 529. 2. The state statutory proceedings are within the scope of § 666 and reach all claims in their totality, although the adjudication is made on a monthly basis. Pp. 529—530. Affirmed.

A sheriff, acting on a tip, made a complaint before a magistrate charging that petitioner and another individual on the date and at the place named 'did then and there unlawfully break and enter into… Held: Petitioner's arrest violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and the evidence secured incident thereto should have been excluded from his trial. Pp. 564—569.

United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the National Firearms Act's registration requirements do not violate the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Additionally, the Court held that the Act's restrictions against a person's "receiv[ing] or possess[ing] a firearm which is not registered to him," did not require the recipient to have the specific intent to possess an unregistered firearm. Consequently, the Court ruled that the buyer of unregistered hand grenades was subject to criminal liability, despite a lack of a requirement that the defendant have had a "specific intent or knowledge that the hand grenades were unregistered."

Petitioners in No. 61, an association of open-end investment companies and several individual such companies, attack (1) portions of the Comptroller of the Currency's Regulation 9, purporting to… Held: Petitioners in No. 61 do not lack standing to challenge whether national banks may legally enter a field in competition with them. Association of Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184. Pp. 620—621. 2.

In No. 81, here on direct review, petitioner was convicted of selling narcotics after a trial in which heroin seized in a search incident to… Held: The judgments are affirmed. Pp. 649—666, 699—700. No. 81, 9 Cir., 418 F.2d 159, and No. 82, affirmed. Mr. Justice WHITE, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice STEWART, and Mr. Justice BLACKMUN, concluded that Chimel, supra, is not retroactive and should not be applied to searches conducted prior to the date of that decision.

At petitioner's trial for income tax evasion, the Government used monthly wagering tax forms petitioner had filed, as required by statute, to show that the gross amount of wagers he reported, less… Held: The judgment is affirmed. 411 F.2d 504, affirmed.

The United States brought this action for the forfeiture of money in the possession of one Angelini when he was arrested for failing to register as a… Held: The Fifth Amendment privilege may properly be invoked in this case since the forfeiture statutes, when viewed in their entirety, are intened to penalize only persons significantly involved in a criminal enterprise. Pp. 717—722. 2. The Marchetti-Grosso rule has retroactive effect in a forfeiture proceeding under § 7302.

United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that recording conversations using concealed radio transmitters worn by informants does not violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and thus does not require a warrant.

Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797 (1971) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled against the retroactive application of Chimel v. California. The Court also ruled that evidence from mistaken identity arrests can be admissible as long as other factors support probable cause.

Petitioners conducted a lottery operation in Florida, near the Georgia border. Held: Conducting a gambling operation frequented by out-of-state bettors does not, without more, constitute a violation of the Travel Act. Pp. 811—814. 418 F.2d 1218, reversed. Albert J. Datz, Jacksonville, Fla., for petitioners. Sidney M. Glazer, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an individual who received an automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, but who was born outside the United States, may lose his citizenship for failure to fulfill any reasonable residence requirements which the United States Congress may impose as a condition subsequent to that citizenship.

Haywood v. National Basketball Association, 401 U.S. 1204 (1971), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled against the NBA's requirement that a player could not be drafted by an NBA team until four years after graduating from high school. Justice Douglas, in an in-chambers opinion, allowed Spencer Haywood to play in the NBA temporarily until the litigation could proceed further. The case was settled out of court, Haywood continued playing, and the NBA modified its four-year rule to allow players to enter the league early in cases of "hardship".