Volume 416 — United States Reports

Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of a residential zoning ordinance in Belle Terre, New York, allowing a restrictive definition of family that prevented unrelated college students from residing in a single-family dwelling.

California Bankers Ass'n v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Bank Secrecy Act, passed by Congress in 1970 requiring banks to record all transactions and report certain domestic and foreign transactions of high-dollar amounts to the United States Treasury, did not violate the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

from pages 100-101 intentionally omitted] PER CURIAM. 1 This litigation arose out of the bankruptcy of Samuels & Co. a large meat packing concern with plants in various parts of Texas. Respondents had sold cattle to Samuels, for which they received checks in payment, but bankruptcy ensued before the checks had been paid by the drawee bank.

Workers engaged in an economic strike in New Jersey are eligible for public assistance through state welfare programs. Held: To the extent that declaratory relief was sought, the case-or-controversy requirement of Art. III, § 2, and the Declaratory Judgment Act is completely satisfied. Pp. 121—127.

Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court rejected a nonprobationary federal civil service employee's claim to a full hearing prior to dismissal over charges he had brought the government into disrepute by recklessly accusing a superior of corruption. The governing federal law prescribed not only grounds for removal but also removal procedures. The employee could only be removed for "cause," but the procedures did not provide for an adversarial hearing prior to termination. The Court also rejected the respondent's claim that his First Amendment rights were violated.

Petitioners, the personal representatives of the estates of students who were killed on the campus of a state-controlled university,… Held: The Eleventh Amendment does not in some circumstances bar an action for damages against a state official charged with depriving a person of a federal right under color of state law, and the District Court acted prematurely and hence erroneously in dismissing the complaints as it did without affording petitioners any opportunity by…

Section 402(a)(7) of the Social Security Act requires state agencies in administering the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program to 'take into consideration . . . any expenses… Held: The Colorado regulation conflicts with § 402(a)(7) and is therefore invalid. Pp. 258—266.

On a petition by a labor union for a representation election, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) held that the buyers employed by respondent company constituted an appropriate… Held: Congress intended to exclude from the protections of the NLRA all employees properly classified as 'managerial,' not just those in positions susceptible to conflicts of interest in labor relations.

DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the case had become moot and so declined to render a decision on the merits. American student Marco DeFunis, who had been denied admission to the University of Washington School of Law in the state of Washington before he was provisionally admitted during the pendency of the case, was slated to graduate within a few months of the decision being rendered.

Kahn v. Shevin, 416 U.S. 351 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that granting widows a bonus property tax exemption not available to widowers does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it has a "fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation." After holding a gender distinction that benefited men void in Reed v. Reed (1971), the Court was presented with cases like Kahn that dealt with gender distinctions that benefited women. The court in Kahn splintered over the question, but later held unanimously in Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld (1975) that a similar provision did violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Since the right to recover possession of real property was a right ascertained and protected at common law, the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution entitles either party to demand a jury trial in an action to recover possession of real property in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia under § 16—1501 of the District of Columbia Code. Pp. 369—385. 294 A.2d 490, reversed and remanded. Norman C. Barnett, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Shareholders' derivative diversity suits were brought in federal court in New York, alleging that the president of a Florida corporation… Held: While resort to an available certification procedure, such as is available in Florida, is not obligatory where there is doubt as to local law, and its use in a given case is discretionary, resort to such procedure seems particularly appropriate here in view of the novelty of the question, the unsettled state of Florida law, and the…

Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that it is unconstitutional to prohibit incarcerated people from corresponding with law students and paralegals regarding prison conditions and potential attorney–client relationships.

Held: which are in violation of Title 26 U. S. Code Section 4704 (a). "And that the facts tending to establish the foregoing grounds for issuance of a Search Warrant are as follows: See the facts set forth in the affidavit attached hereto and made a part hereof. /s/ Marion L. Green MARION L. GREEN MPD" [13] The affidavit states specifically: "I, the undersigned officer who is assigned to the Third District Vice Squad,…

Harshaw Chemical Co., an unincorporated division of petitioner, over a period of years developed certain processes in the growth and encapsulation of synthetic crystals and purification of raw… Held: Ohio's trade secret law is not pre-empted by the federal patent laws. Pp. 474—493.

Petitioner Edwin A. Snow, who had advanced part of the capital in a partnership formed in 1966 to develop a special-purpose incinerator… Held: It was error to disallow the deduction, which was 'in connection with' petitioner's trade or business, and the disallowance was contrary to the broad legislative objective of the Congress when it enacted § 174 to provide an economic incentive, especially for small and growing businesses, to engage in the search for new products and…

Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 provides in 18 U.S.C. § 2516(1) that 'the Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney… Held: Congress did not intend the power to authorize wiretap applications to be exercised by any individuals other than the Attorney General or an Assistant Attorney General specially designated by him. Pp. 512—523.

Under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 each application for a court order authorizing the interception of… Held: Because the application for the interception order on the Fernandez phone was authorized by the Attorney General's Executive Assistant, rather than by the Attorney General or any specially designated Assistant Attorney General, on whom alone § 2516(1) confers such power, evidence secured under that order was properly suppressed.

The Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure makes available to a mortgage or lien holder a writ of sequestration to forestall waste or alienation of… Held: The Louisiana sequestration procedure is not invalid, either on its face or as applied, and, considering the procedure as a whole, it effects a constitutional accommodation of the respective interests of the buyer and seller by providing for judicial control of the process from beginning to end, thus minimizing the risk of the…

During the course of a joint first-degree murder trial, respondent's codefendant pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, of which the trial court advised the jury, stating that the trial against… Held: In the circumstances of this case, where the prosecutor's ambiguous remark in the course of an extended trial was followed by the trial court's specific disapproving instructions, no prejudice amounting to a denial of constitutional due process was shown.

Following discharge of petitioners, managers of meat departments in respondent Food Fair's stores, because of their union membership, the… Held: The second clause of § 14(a) applies to any law requiring an employer to accord to supervisors like petitioners, who are 'the front line of management,' the 'anomalous status of employees,' and enforcement of the North Carolina law would thus flout the national policy against compulsion upon employers from either federal or state…

A pleasure yacht, which appellee had leased to Puerto Rican residents, was seized, pursuant to Puerto Rican statutes providing for forfeiture of vessels used for unlawful purposes, without prior… Held: The statutes of Puerto Rico are 'State statute(s)' for purposes of the Three-Judge Court Act, and hence a three-judge court was properly convened under that Act and direct appeal to this Court was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1253. Pp. 669—676. 2.

The District Court on May 26, 1971, awarded to the successful plaintiff-petitioners, Negro parents and guardians, in this protracted litigation involving the desegregation of the Richmond, Virginia,… Held: Section 718 can be applied to attorneys' services that were rendered before that provision was enacted, in a situation like the one here involved where the propriety of the fee award was pending resolution on appeal when the statute became law. Pp. 710—724.

Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725 (1974), is a decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that Bob Jones University, which had its 501(c)(3) status revoked by the Internal Revenue Service for practicing "racially discriminatory admissions policies" towards African Americans, could not sue for an injunction to prevent losing its tax-exempt status. The question of Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status was ultimately resolved in Bob Jones University v. United States, in which the court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect discriminatory organizations from losing tax-exempt status.

Repondent, a nonprofit">nonprofit corporation, had a ruling letter assuring it of tax-exempt status under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (Code). Held: The action is barred by § 7421(a). Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 8 L.Ed.2d 292; Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 94 S.Ct. 2038, 40 L.Ed.2d 496. Pp. 758—763.

In this action (brought initially by appellant Dillard and in which appellant Williams was allowed to intervene) Williams claimed that… Held: If, as indicated in the briefs and oral arguments in this Court, state law permits a claimant whose benefits have been suspended to have them reinstated by the state trial courts, which act in a purely ministerial capacity, pending a full administrative hearing before the State Industrial Commission on the merits of his claim, it was…

Allee v. Medrano, 416 U.S. 802 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that police officers' interference with a strike was a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

A state health inspector entered respondent's outdoor premises in the daylight without its knowledge or consent and without a warrant, to… Held: The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, does not extend to sights seen in 'the open fields,' Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59, 44 S.Ct. 445, 446, 68 L.Ed. 898, such as here where the inspector did not enter the respondent's plant or offices but had sighted what anyone who was near the plant…

Held: “As we construe § 41-1412 it is narrowed to ‘fighting words’ addressed to, toward, or about another person in his presence or hearing, which language in its common acceptation is calculated to arouse to anger the person about or to whom it is spoken or addressed or to cause a breach of the peace or an assault.” 254 Ark. 584, 589 , 494 S. W. 2d 705, 708 (1973).

Held: however, that the instructions defining 'use' were erroneous because not confined to use for postal purposes.