Volume 425 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 425 of the United States Reports:

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) provides four methods of disposing of cases involving servicemen's offenses: general, special, and summary courts-martial, and disciplinary punishment… Held: There is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in a summary court-martial, since that proceeding is not a "criminal prosecution" as that term is used in the Amendment. Pp. 33-42.

Held: subsequent to the decision below, that where fact issues are raised, on a motion to vacate an attachment, with respect to the merits of the underlying claim, a preliminary hearing will be held on those issues.

The trial court's order preventing petitioner, the defendant in a federal criminal prosecution, from consulting his counsel "about anything" during a 17-hour overnight recess in the trial between his direct- and cross-examination Held to deprive petitioner of his right to the assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Pp. 86-91.

During the course of petitioner's criminal trial, the chief prosecution witness (Newman) indicated on cross-examination that on certain… Held: Any writing prepared by a Government lawyer relating to the subject matter of the testimony of a Government witness that has been "signed or otherwise adopted or approved" by that witness is producible under the Jencks Act, and the writing is not rendered nonproducible because a Government lawyer interviewed the witness and wrote the…

Held: or even suggested, that the constitutional standard requires an inquiry into whether a redistricting plan is "ameliorative" or "retrogressive," a fortiori there is no basis for so reading § 5. While the Court attempts to provide a basis by relying on the asserted purpose of § 5—to preserve present Negro voting strength—it is wholly unsuccessful.

Prior to 1960 the Suits in Admiralty Act authorized suit against the United States in cases involving vessels owned by, possessed by, or operated by or for the United States, if such suit could have been maintained had the vessel been a private one, and provided further that such vessel was employed as a merchant vessel. In 1960, Congress amended the Act by deleting the latter proviso.

Petitioner accounting firm was retained to audit periodically a brokerage firm's books and records. Respondents, who were customers of the brokerage firm, invested in a securities scheme ultimately revealed as fraudulent and perpetrated by the firm's president and principal stockholder.

Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219 (1976), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court on the patentability of a claim for a business method patent.

A county regulation limiting the length of county policemen's hair Held not to violate any right guaranteed respondent policeman by the Fourteenth Amendment.

can be read as a holding based only on points of criminal law and the law of evidence ; it contains nothing to indicate that a point of federal constitutional law is decided.

Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976), was a unanimous 1976 Supreme Court decision holding a claimed invention obvious because it "simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, although perhaps producing a more striking result than in previous combinations."

Hills v. Gautreaux, 425 U.S. 284 (1976), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court.

filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that procedures used in prison disciplinary proceedings violated their… Held: The procedures required by the respective Courts of Appeals are either inconsistent with the "reasonable accommodation" reached in Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935, between institutional needs and objectives and the constitutional provisions of general application, or are premature on the basis of the…

Statements made by petitioner taxpayer to Internal Revenue agents during the course of a noncustodial interview in a criminal tax investigation Held admissible against him in the ensuing criminal tax fraud prosecution even though he was not given warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.

Under the United States Air Force Academy's Honor Code, which is administered by a cadet committee, cadets pledge that they will not lie, steal, or cheat, or tolerate among their number anyone who does. If a cadet investigatory team finds that a hearing before an Honor Board concerning a suspected violation is warranted, the accused may call witnesses, and cadet observers attend.

Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976), is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause does not protect a taxpayer or their attorney from being required to turn over workpapers prepared by the taxpayer's accountant. The case was decided together with the companion case United States v. Kasmir, because the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals considered similar issues but reached the opposite of the Third Circuit's conclusion in Fisher.

United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court that held that bank records are not subject to protection under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case, along with Smith v. Maryland, established the principle of the third-party doctrine in relation to privacy rights.

Moe v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 425 U.S. 463 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state tax on personal property owned by tribe members inside reservations and a state sales tax on trade between two tribe members were preempted by the General Allotment Act. Charging non-members sales tax on commerce with tribe members was constitutional, and the state could require the tribe member to collect that tax. The court also said that treating Natives differently in this context would constitute racial discrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court decision on the subject of Entrapment. By a 5–3 margin, the Court upheld the conviction of a Missouri man for selling heroin even though all the drug sold was supplied to him, he claimed, by a Drug Enforcement Administration informant who had, in turn, gotten it from the DEA. The majority held that the record showed Hampton was predisposed to sell drugs no matter his source.

Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976), is a Supreme Court case involving Harry Lee Williams' conviction of assault on his former landlord in Harris County, Texas. While awaiting trial Williams was unable to post bail. He was tried in his prison uniform, and later was found guilty. He sought a writ of habeas corpus saying being tried in a prison uniform violated his Constitutional rights in accordance with the 14th Amendment. The Court of Appeals ruled that the accused does not have to stand trial in identifiable prison clothes and Williams’ right to due process was violated. The Supreme Court reversed, reinstating the conviction, on June 21, 1976.

Six years after his conviction for felony murder from which he took no appeal, petitioner sought collateral relief from the state court on the ground, Inter alia, that Negroes had been excluded from the grand jury that indicted him. Relief was denied on the ground that petitioner's failure to raise the claim before trial constituted a waiver of that claim under state law. Petitioner then sought habeas corpus in the District Court, which granted relief.

United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that it is not necessary to provide full Miranda warnings to a person called to testify before a grand jury; and that false statements given during that testimony may not be suppressed in a subsequent prosecution for perjury.

A municipal ordinance requiring that advance written notice be given to the local police department by "(a)ny person (including representatives of Borough Civic Groups and Organizations) desiring to canvass, solicit or call from house to house . . . for a recognized charitable cause, or . . . for a Federal, State, County or Municipal political campaign or cause . . . for identification only" Held invalid because of vagueness.

Though Texas' general venue statute provides that no inhabitant of the State shall be sued outside the county of his domicile, an exception where a Texas corporation is the defendant provides in pertinent part for suit outside the domiciliary county only if at a preliminary venue hearing it is proved by a preponderance of evidence that the plaintiff has a cause of action.

Section 3 of the Northern Cheyenne Allotment Act of 1926 (Act) reserves coal and other mineral deposits underlying lands on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation for the Tribe's benefit, but further… Held: The Act did not give the allottees of surface lands vested rights in the mineral deposits underlying those lands.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and various other organizations petitioned the Federal Power Commission (FPC) to issue a rule "requiring equal employment opportunity… Held: The FPC is authorized to consider the consequences of discriminatory employment practices on the part of its regulatees only insofar as such consequences are directly related to the FPC's establishment of just and reasonable rates in the public interest.

Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Act of State doctrine does not apply to foreign acts that are "purely commercial."

Petitioner corporation, which operates a 49-bed proprietary hospital (Mary Elizabeth) in Raleigh, N.C., brought this antitrust action… Held: Petitioner's complaint states a cause of action upon which relief can be granted under the Sherman Act, the combination of factors involving petitioner in interstate commerce being sufficient to establish a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce, within the meaning of the Sherman Act, as a result of respondents' alleged conduct.

Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a state could not limit pharmacists' right to provide information about prescription drug prices. This was an important case in determining the application of the First Amendment to commercial speech.

Arizona v. New Mexico, 425 U.S. 794 (1976), is an opinion from the United States Supreme Court which denied a motion from the State of Arizona seeking authorization to file suit against the State of New Mexico by invoking the original jurisdiction of the court.

South Prairie Construction Co. v. Local No 627, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, 425 U.S. 800 (1976), is a US labor law case, concerning the scope of labor rights in the United States.

Under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (EOA) the Federal Government, acting through an agency (at the relevant time herein the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO)), furnishes financial assistance for community action programs undertaken by community action agencies.

Held: first, that the § 717 remedy for federal employment discrimination was retroactively available to any employee, such as the petitioner, whose administrative complaint was pending at the time § 717 became effective on March 24, 1972. 4 The appellate court held, second, that § 717 provides the exclusive judicial remedy for federal employment discrimination, and that the complaint had not been timely filed under that…

Section 717(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, added by § 11 of the Equal Opportunity Act of 1972, provides that within a… Held: The plain meaning of the statute, reinforced by the legislative history of the 1972 amendments, compels the conclusion that federal employees have the same right to a trial De novo as is enjoyed by private sector or state government employees under the amended Civil Rights Act of 1964. Pp. 843-864. 515 F.2d 251, reversed and remanded.

Doe v. Commonwealth's Attorney of Richmond, 425 U.S. 901 (1976), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which gave summary affirmation of a lower court ruling which upheld the U.S. state of Virginia's ban on homosexual sodomy.

Held: and the District Judge again concluded that 'the monitoring agents made no attempt to comply with the minimization order of the Court but listened to and recorded all calls over the [subject] telephone.