Volume 406 — United States Reports

This is a list of all United States Supreme Court cases from volume 406 of the United States Reports:

The State of Illinois has filed a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint against four Wisconsin cities and two local sewerage commissions for allegedly polluting Lake Michigan. Held: Though Wisconsin could be joined as a defendant here under appropriate pleadings, it is not mandatory that it be made one, and its political subdivisions are not 'States' within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1).

Eighteen States have filed a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint against the Nation's four major automobile manufacturers and their trade… Held: Though the Court has original but not exclusive jurisdiction, it exercises discretion to avoid impairing its ability to administer its appellate docket. In view of the nature of the relief requested and the availability of the federal district courts as an alternative forum, the Court declines to assume jurisdiction.

The exceptions to the Special Master's Report in this action brought by Nebraska for construction and enforcement of the Iowa-Nebraska Boundary Compact of 1943, entered into to establish a permanent location of a boundary line made difficult by the meanderings of the Missouri River, are generally overruled.

Held: As to the United States: There was no duty on the part of the Government to the petitioners, in connection *149 with their sales of UDC stock, that continued after the 1961 termination. No form of wardship or of federal trust relationship existed with respect to the shares after that date. Thus, damages under the Tort Claims Act were not to be awarded. 431 F. 2d, at 1340-1343. 2.

Decedent, who died as a result of injuries received during the course of his employment, had maintained a household with four legitimate… Held: Louisiana's denial of equal recovery rights to the dependent unacknowledged illegitimate children violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as the inferior classification of these dependent children bears no significant relationship to the recognized purposes of recovery that workmen's compensation statutes…

Vermont v. New York, 406 U.S. 186 (1972), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court giving the State of Vermont permission to file an original complaint against the State of New York and International Paper Corporation.

Wisconsin v. Jonas Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court held that Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade. The Court ruled that the Amish parents' fundamental right to free exercise of religion outweighed the state's interest in educating their children. The case is often cited as a basis for parents' right to educate their children outside of traditional private or public schools. Like Sherbert v. Verner, the Court in Yoder required the government accommodate religious exercise by applying strict scrutiny to a neutral law that burdened religious exercise. Yoder differs from Sherbert v.

Petitioner's claim that his guilty plea was not voluntarily and intelligently made because of an alleged conflict of interest on the part of his counsel has no merit, and that alleged conflict of interest is therefore not a reason for vacating his plea. Pp. 251—257. 161 Conn. 337, 288 A.2d 58, affirmed. James A. Wade, Hartford, Conn., for petitioner; and John D. LaBelle, Manchester, Conn., for respondent.

Wackenhut Corp., a company that had provided plant protection service for a Lockheed Aircraft Service Co. factory, had entered into a… Held: Where the bargaining unit remained unchanged and a majority of the employees hired by the new employer were represented by a recently certified bargaining agent, the NLRB correctly implemented the express mandates of §§ 8(a)(5) and 9(a) of the Act by ordering the new employer, Burns, to bargain with the incumbent union, UPG.

Warrantless search of locked storeroom during business hours as part of inspection procedure authorized by § 923(g) of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which resulted in the seizure of unlicensed firearms from a dealer federally licensed to deal in sporting weapons held not violative of Fourth Amendment. Pp. 311—317. 442 F.2d 1189, reversed and remanded. A. Kent Greenawalt for petitioner. Warren F. Reynolds, Hobbs, N.M., for respondent. Mr.

Petitioner, claiming that he was wrongfully discharged from his employment by respondent railroad, filed a state-court action based on state law for breach of contract. Held: Since the source of petitioner's right not to be discharged and of his employer's obligation to restore him to his regular employment following an injury is the collective-bargaining agreement, petitioner must follow the grievance and arbitration procedures set forth in the Railway Labor Act.

District Court for the Northern District of California has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1) to hear and determine the habeas corpus application of petitioner, who was on unattached, inactive Army reserve duty while domiciled in California, where military authorities processed his application for conscientious objector discharge, though he was under the nominal command of the commanding officer of the Reserve Officer Components Personnel Center in Indiana.

Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356 (1972), was a court case in the U.S. Supreme Court involving the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana law that allowed less-than unanimous jury verdicts (9 to 12 jurors) to convict persons charged with a felony, does not violate the Due Process clause. This case was argued on a similar basis as Apodaca v. Oregon.

Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state juries may convict a defendant by a less-than-unanimous verdict in a felony criminal case. The four-justice plurality opinion of the court, written by Justice White, affirmed the judgment of the Oregon Court of Appeals and held that there was no constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. Although federal law requires federal juries to reach criminal verdicts unanimously, the Court held Oregon's practice did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury and so allowed it to continue. In Johnson v.

Petitioner, the trustee of Webb & Knapp, Inc., under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act, does not have standing to assert, on behalf of holders of debentures issued by Webb & Knapp, claims of misconduct by an indenture trustee. Pp. 417—435. 439 F.2d 118, affirmed. Charles H. Miller, New York City, for petitioner. David Ferber, Washington, D.C., for the Securities and Exchange Commission. John W. Dickey, New York City, for respondent.

Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled on the issue of whether the government's grant of immunity from prosecution can compel a witness to testify over an assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In a 5-2 decision (Justices Brennan and Rehnquist took no part in the consideration of the case), the Court held that the government can overcome a claim of Fifth Amendment privilege by granting a witness "use and derivative use" immunity in exchange for his testimony.

After appellant invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer questions concerning organized crime, racketeering, and political corruption in Long Branch, New Jersey, appellee Commission granted… Held: The New Jersey statutory immunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination, and is sufficient to compel testimony. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212. p. 441. Pp. 474—476. 2.

Petitioner union brought an action in June 1968 seeking damages and injunctive relief for respondent's alleged breach of their collective-bargaining agreement,… Held: As the District Court found, the parties did agree to arbitrate and, the existence and scope of an arbitration clause being matters for judicial decision, the phrase 'any difference' encompasses the issue of laches within the broad sweep of its arbitration coverage. Pp. 490—492. 7 Cir., 440 F.2d 557, reversed.

Michigan's Watercraft Pollution Control Act of 1970, appellees maintain, prohibits the discharge of sewage, whether treated or untreated, in Michigan waters and requires vessels with marine toilets… Held: The complaint presents an 'actual controversy' within the meaning of the Declaratory Judgment Act because the obligation to install sewage storage devices under the Michigan statute is presently effective in fact. Pp. 506-508. 2.

Petitioner is not foreclosed by 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), which proscribes the unauthorized making of any patented invention within the United States, from making the parts of shrimp deveining machines (for which respondent was adjudged to have valid combination patents) to sell to foreign buyers for assembly by the buyers for use abroad.

Appellants, recipients of Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC), challenge the system whereby Texas, in order to allocate its fixed pool of… Held: The Texas scheme does not contravene § 402(a)(23) of the Social Security Act, which does not require use of a computation procedure that maximizes individual eligibility for subsidiary benefits. Pp. 539—545. 2. The challenged system does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 545—551.

Appellant political party, its officers, and members, attacked the constitutionality of revisions of the Ohio election code made following… Held: The record and pleadings on the one issue not mooted by the supervening legislation (an issue that received scant attention in appellants' complaint and none in the affidavits supporting the cross-motions for summary judgment) are inadequate for resolution of the constitutional questions presented, and in view of the abstract and…

This is a class action for injunctive and declaratory relief by a child and mother whose husband is away from home on military duty,… Held: Section 402(a)(10) of the Social Security Act imposes on each State participating in the AFDC program the requirement that benefits 'shall be furnished with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals.' Under the Act the eligibility criterion of 'continued absence' of a parent from the home means that the parent may be absent…

Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a criminal defendant cannot be forced by law to testify before all other witnesses.

When United Gas Pipe Line Co. (United), a jurisdictional pipeline, experienced temporary shortages of natural gas supply forcing it to reduce deliveries to its contract… Held: The FPC has power to regulate curtailment of direct interstate sales of natural gas under the head of its 'transportation' jurisdiction in § 1(b), and the prohibition in the proviso clause of that provision withheld from FPC only rate-setting authority with respect to such sales. Pp. 631—647. 2.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) promulgated a rule that 'no CATV system having 3,500 or more subscribers shall carry the signal of any television broadcast station unless the system also… Held: The judgment is reversed. Pp. 659 675. 441 F.2d 1322, reversed. Mr. Justice BRENNAN, joined by Mr. Justice WHITE, Mr. Justice MARSHALL, and Mr. Justice BLACKMUN, concluded that: 1.

Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not attach during a pre-indictment identification.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d), providing that '(a)n alien may be sued in any district,' embodies the long-established rule that a suit against an alien is wholly outside the operation of all federal… Held: however, that the change was stylistic and not substantive, and that Congress did not thereby bring suits against aliens within the scope of the venue laws.

Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that determined a U.S. state violated due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him.

1. Two 'car service rules' promulgated by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), requiring generally that unloaded freight cars be returned in the direction of the owning railroad, are 'reasonable' under the Esch Car Service Act of 1917, in view of the ICC's finding, for which there is substantial record support, of a national freight car shortage, and its conclusion that the shortage could be alleviated by mandatory observance of the rules, which would give the railroads…

This case involves a claim by respondent for excess collateral it had pledged with petitioner to secure a loan, and a counterclaim by… Held: The judgment is reversed. Pp. 762—776. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice WHITE, concluded that since the Executive Branch, which is charged with the primary responsibility for the conduct of foreign affairs, has (contrary to the position it took in Sabbatino) expressly represented to the Court that…

Damage from sonic boom caused by military planes, where no negligence was shown either in the planning or operation of the flight, is not actionable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which does not authorize suit against the Government on claims based on strict or absolute liability for ultrahazadous activity. Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 73 S.Ct. 956, 97 L.Ed. 1427. Pp. 798—803. 442 F.2d 1163, reversed. Richard B. Stone, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.

Aikens v. California, 406 U.S. 813 (1972), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court where a petitioner (in the U.S. Supreme Court, the plaintiff (Aikens) is called the petitioner and the defendant (the State of California) is called the respondent) was appealing his conviction and death sentence. After oral argument had been made on the case, but before the court decided on it, the Supreme Court of California in People v. Anderson, declared the death penalty unconstitutional under the state constitution. This made his appeal unnecessary because the decision in Anderson declared capital punishment in California unconstitutional under Art. 1, 6, of the state constitution...