Volume 432 — United States Reports

Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court case where the court ruled on whether state governments have the authority to deny permanent immigrants access to tuition assistance or loans for higher educational institutions. In a five to four decision, the court sided with Mauclet and ruled that such action is considered discriminatory against those with an immigrant status. This case brought forth important questions about whether the denial of education benefits to immigrants could be considered a form of discrimination as well as reaffirmed the federal government's authority over states in cases of immigration law.

After the prosecutor's opening statement in petitioner's bench trial for theft in violation of the Assimilative Crimes Act and the applicable… Held: Petitioner's retrial after dismissal of the defective information at his request did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. Pp. 27-34. (a) The proceedings against petitioner did not terminate in his favor, the dismissal clearly not being predicated on any judgment that he could never be prosecuted for or convicted of the theft.

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977), arising out of what is sometimes referred to as the Skokie Affair, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. This case is commonly reviewed in constitutional law classes. Related court decisions are captioned Skokie v. NSPA, Collin v. Smith and Smith v. Collin. The Supreme Court ruled 5–4, per curiam, granting certiorari and reversing and remanding the Illinois Supreme Court's denial to lift the lower court's injunction on the NSPA's march. The ruling dictated that when citizens assert that their speech is being restrained, the matter must be reviewed immediately by the judiciary.

Daniel M. Gribbon, Washington, D. C., for petitioners in No. 75-1870. Richard J. Collins, Jr., and Lewis C. Murtaugh, Chicago, Ill., for respondents in both cases.

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977), is a landmark decision on religious liberty and employment law. In 1977, the US Supreme Court held that an employer may discharge an employee who observes a seventh-day sabbath, and that such employee is not entitled to equal employment opportunity protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of his religion. This ruling has been significantly tailored by Groff v.

Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1977. The decision touched on the exclusionary rule in state criminal proceedings.

A federal grand jury returned two indictments against petitioner for offenses under 21 U.S.C.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth held to bar prosecution and punishment for the crime of stealing an automobile following prosecution and punishment for the lesser included offense of operating the same vehicle without the owner's consent. Pp. 164-170.

Held: nominating petitions signed by at least 3% of the State's registered voters and a certificate of candidacy. Md. Elec. Code Ann. § 7-1 (1976 and Supp. 1976). In Presidential election years this filing date occurs approximately 230 to 240 days before the general election. In other years it occurs about 120 days before the general election. §§ 1-1 (a) (8), 5-2, 7-1.

Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977), was a legal case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States that stated that the Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment did not prevent the burdening of a defendant to prove the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance as defined by law in the state of New York.

Prior to the decision in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508, petitioner was convicted in a North Carolina court of second-degree murder over his claim that he acted in… Held: The North Carolina Supreme Court erred in declining to hold the Mullaney rule retroactive. Ivan V. v. City of New York, 407 U.S. 203, 92 S.Ct. 1951, 32 L.Ed.2d 659.

In 1972 Congress amended the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (Act) to extend coverage to additional workers in an attempt to avoid anomalies inherent in a system that drew lines… Held: Both respondents satisfied the "status" test of eligibility for compensation, since they were both "engaged in maritime employment" and were therefore "employees" within the meaning of § 902(3) at the time of their injuries. Pp. 265-279.

The Florida death penalty statute, which was upheld in Proffitt v. Held: The changes in the death penalty statute between the time of the murder and the time of the trial are procedural and on the whole ameliorative, and hence there is no ex post facto violation. Pp. 293-297.

Title 12 U.S.C. § 91, which prohibits an "attachment, injunction, or execution" from being issued against a national bank or its property before final judgment in any state or local court, held, when… Held: when read in context, merely to prevent prejudgment seizure of bank property by creditors and not to apply to a mortgagor-debtor's action seeking a preliminary injunction to protect its real property from wrongful foreclosure.

Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously struck down a North Carolina law prohibiting the sale of apples in closed containers marked with any apple grade other than the United States Department of Agriculture grade.[1] However, displaying the USDA grade was not required. Washington state, a major apple producer, used apple standards superior to those used by the USDA. The Court found that North Carolina's law violated the Commerce Clause because they discriminated against Washington state apple producers while working to the advantage of local North Carolina apple growers. John R. Jordan, Jr., argued the cause for Hunt. With him on the brief were Rufus L.

About three years after an employee of petitioner company had first complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under Title… Held: Section 706(f)(1) imposes no limitation upon the EEOC's power to file suit in federal court. The provision's language and legislative history show that it was intended to enable an aggrieved person unwilling to await the conclusion of extended EEOC proceedings to institute a private lawsuit 180 days after a charge has been filed.

Claiming that petitioner United Airlines had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by requiring stewardesses, though not stewards, to remain unmarried as an employment condition, one… Held: Respondent's motion to intervene was "timely" filed under Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 24 and should have been granted.

The provision of § 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that a determination of the Attorney General or Director of the Census that a State is covered by the Act "shall not be reviewable in any court" held absolutely to preclude judicial review of such a determination.

Held: however, that the HEW regulation was invalid in this regard because it delegated the question of coverage to the States without providing a uniform national standard. Id., at 81-82 .

Beal v. Doe, 432 U.S. 438 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case that concerned the disbursement of federal funds in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania statute restricted federal funding to abortion clinics. The Supreme Court ruled states are not required to treat abortion in the same manner as potential motherhood. The opinion of the Court left the central holding of the Roe v. Wade decision – abortion as a right – intact. The statute was upheld, with Justice Powell writing the majority opinion.

Held: of fundamental importance. An unwanted child may be disruptive and destructive of the life of any woman, but the impact is felt most by those too poor to ameliorate those effects. If funds for an abortion are unavailable, a poor woman may feel that she is forced to obtain an illegal abortion that poses a serious threat to her health and even her life. See n.1, supra.

Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that addressed a Connecticut regulation denying Medicaid funding for nontherapeutic (elective) abortions while permitting funding for childbirth. The court held that, although the Constitution protects a woman’s right to choose an abortion, it does not require the government to subsidize the exercise of that right. The decision established a critical distinction between state interference with a constitutional right and a state's decision not to fund that right, shaping the non-entitlement funding doctrine in constitutional law.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 establishes two alternative methods by which States subject to the Act can obtain federal preclearance review of a change in their voting laws: (1) the… Held: The objection interposed by the Attorney General to the new plan on July 20, 1973, nunc pro tunc, is invalid, and therefore South Carolina is free to implement such plan. Pp. 499-507.