Volume 422 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 422 of the United States Reports:

Two hours after retiring for deliberation in petitioner's trial for having allegedly violated 18 U.S.C. § 871(a) by threatening the life of the President, the jury by note asked the… Held: '(T)he orderly conduct of a trial by jury, essential to the proper protection of the right to be heard, entitles the parties . . . to be present in person or by counsel at all proceedings from the time the jury is impaneled until it is discharged after rendering the verdict,' Fillippon v.

Respondent corporation brought this action against petitioner to enjoin him from voting or pledging his stock in respondent and from acquiring additional shares, and to require him to divest himself… Held: A showing of irreparable harm, in accordance with traditional principles of equity, is necessary before a private litigant can obtain injunctive relief based upon § 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act. Pp. 57-65.

Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975), was a case in which Justice William J. Brennan writing for a unanimous United States Supreme Court articulated a four factor test for federal courts to apply when deciding whether the implication doctrine allows a cause of action to be inferred from a federal statute that does not clearly state a civil remedy.

To circumvent Georgia's longstanding stringent restrictions on city banks' opening branches in suburban areas, appellee Citizens &… Held: Since the Attorney General took no action by July 1966 against the three 5-percent banks that were formed prior to that date, the transactions by which these banks became 5-percent banks fall within the terms of the grandfather provision of the Bank Holding Company Act, and therefore the correspondent associate programs in force at…

Twentieth Century Music Corp v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that receiving a song over a radio signal does not constitute a "performance," and therefore does not infringe upon the exclusive right to perform the copyrighted work publicly for profit.

Following respondent's arrest for robbery he was taken to the police station, where, advised of his right to remain silent, he made no response to an officer's inquiry as to the source of money found… Held: Respondent's silence during police interrogation lacked significant probative value and under these circumstances any reference to his silence carried with it an intolerably prejudicial impact.

Proof held insufficient to establish Cook Inlet as a historic bay, and hence the United States, as against Alaska, has paramount rights to the land beneath the waters of the lower, or seaward, portion of the inlet. Pp. 189-204. (a) The sparse evidence as to Russia's exercise of authority over the lower inlet during the period of Russian sovereignty is insufficient to demonstrate the exercise of authority essential to the establishment of a historic bay. Pp. 190-192.

Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205 (1975), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning a city ordinance prohibiting the showing of films containing nudity by a drive-in theater located in Jacksonville, Florida.

During respondent's federal criminal trial, which resulted in a conviction, defense counsel sought to impeach the credibility of key prosecution witnesses by testimony of a defense investigator… Held: In a proper case, the prosecution, as well as the defense, can invoke the federal judiciary's inherent power to require production of previously recorded witness statements that facilitate full disclosure of all the relevant facts.

Respondents requested the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to make available Systems Worthiness Analysis Program (SWAP) Reports… Held: The SWAP Reports are exempt from public disclosure under Exemption 3 of the FOIA as being 'specifically exempted from disclosure by statute.' Pp. 261-267. (a) Exemption 3 contains no 'built-in' standard as do some of the exemptions under the FOIA and the language is sufficiently ambiguous to require resort to the legislative history.

The Government brought this civil antitrust action against appellee, one of the largest suppliers of janitorial services in the country,… Held: The phrase 'engaged in commerce' as used in § 7 of the Clayton Act means engaged in the flow of interstate commerce, and was not intended to reach all corporations engaged in activities subject to the federal commerce power; hence, the phrase does not encompass corporations engaged in intrastate activities substantially affecting…

In December 1971, the Nation's railroads, citing sharply increasing costs and decreasing or negative profits, collectively proposed to… Held: This Court has jurisdiction over the appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1253, which gives this Court jurisdiction to determine appeals from 'an order granting or denying . . . an . . . injunction in any civil action . . . required . . . to be heard and determined' by a three-judge district court, since the District Court's order, which not…

Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Anti-Injunction Act does apply to state criminal proceedings initiated after a federal complaint is filed but before there has been a "proceeding of substance on the merits" in federal court. The case involved the pornographic film Deep Throat.

City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358 (1975), was a case that upheld Richmond, Virginia's annexation of land from surrounding counties.

After being transferred, without explanation or hearing, from a medium security to a maximum security prison in New York because of his involvement in a conflict among inmates concerning a petition for a prisoners' 'union' at the former prison, respondent brought suit under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3) and (4) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against petitioner prison officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 US 405 (1975), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Title VII disparate impact plaintiffs do not need to prove bad faith to be entitled to backpay. It also expanded on the holding from Griggs v. Duke Power that employment tests must be sufficiently job-related.

After their request for a jury trial was denied, petitioners, a labor union officer and the union, were adjudged guilty of criminal contempt for violating temporary injunctions issued by the District… Held: Petitioners are not entitled to a jury trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3692. Pp. 458-474.

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reviewed the concept of judicial standing and affirmed that if the plaintiffs lacked standing, they could not maintain a case against the defendants.

Held: “[Respondent] is entitled to the benefit of the rule announced in Almeida-Sanchez , not because of retro-activity but because of Fourth Amendment principles never deviated from by the Supreme Court.” Id., at 989. The judgment of conviction was reversed, and the case *534 was remanded to the District Court to suppress the evidence seized from respondent’s automobile.

O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in mental health law. It ruled that a state cannot constitutionally confine non-dangerous individuals who are capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. Since the trial court jury found, upon ample evidence, that petitioner did so confine respondent, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's conclusion that petitioner had violated respondent's right to liberty. The case was important in the deinstitutionalization movement in the United States.

Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Amendment's protection against the introduction of evidence obtained in an illegal arrest is not attenuated by reading the defendant their Miranda Rights.

In determining the applicability of § 533(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954—which provides a rebuttable presumption that a corporation that has accumulated earnings 'beyond the reasonable needs of the business' did so with 'the purpose to avoid the income tax with respect to shareholders'—listed and readily marketable securities owned by the corporation and purchased out of its earnings and profits, are to be taken into account, not at their cost to the corporation,…

Petitioner, individually and on behalf of an asserted class of small investors, filed suit against respondents—the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, and two member firms of the… Held: The system of fixed commission rates, which is under the active supervision of the SEC, is beyond the reach of the antitrust laws. Pp. 663-691.

Section 22(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 provides that 'no dealer shall sell (mutual-fund shares) to any person except a dealer, a principal underwriter, or the issuer, except at a current… Held: Neither the language nor legislative history of § 22(d) justifies extending the section's price maintenance mandate beyond its literal terms to encompass transactions by broker-dealers acting as statutory 'brokers.' Pp. 711-720.

Held: that all statutory provisions based on assumptions about underlying facts are per se unconstitutional unless individual hearings are provided. But in this case, as in the others in which we have stricken down conclusive presumptions, it is possible to specify those factors which, if proved in a hearing, would disprove a rebuttable presumption. See, e. g., Vlandis, 412 U. S., at 452 .

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.

A total denial of the opportunity for final summation in a nonjury criminal trial as well as in a jury trial deprives the accused of the basic right to make his defense, and a New York statute granting every judge in a nonjury criminal trial the power to deny such summation before rendition of judgment denied the accused the assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution as applied against the States by the Fourteenth.

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court determined it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment for a roving patrol car to stop a vehicle solely on the basis of the driver appearing to be of Mexican descent. A roving patrol car must have articulable facts that allow for an officer to have a reasonable suspicion that the person is carrying illegal aliens beyond their ethnicity. The Court handed down a 9–0 decision that affirmed the Circuit Court's ruling in the case. This case was also the final case that William O. Douglas presided on, as he retired shortly after this case, ending his record 36 years as an Associate Justice.

United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment prevented Border Patrol officers from conducting warrantless, suspicionless searches of private vehicles removed from the border or its functional equivalent.

Held: in a sharply divided opinion, that the principles of Almeida-Sanchez applied to searches conducted at traffic checkpoints as well as searches conducted by roving patrols. The Court nevertheless affirmed petitioner’s conviction, holding that Almeida-Sanchez would not be applied to invalidate searches that occurred prior to the date of that decision. 500 F. 2d 960 (1974).

Three corporations (M & L, Salem, and Tim-Rob), on August 9, 1973, filed a complaint in District Court, seeking a temporary restraining… Held: The issues, which were neither briefed nor argued, whether § 1254(2) applies to a review of the affirmance of a preliminary injunction or is confined to review of a final judgment, and whether the Court of Appeals in fact held the ordinance unconstitutional, need not be resolved, since this Court has certiorari jurisdiction under 28…