Volume 437 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 437 of the United States Reports:

On appeal of the first-degree murder convictions of petitioner and another, the Florida Supreme Court reversed by a per curiam opinion and ordered a new trial. Held: Burks v. United States , 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1, precludes a second trial once a reviewing court has determined that the evidence introduced at trial is insufficient to sustain the verdict. Standing by itself, the

Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn because the defendant has an interest in retaining a chosen jury.

Held: based on an intervening First Circuit decision, 11 that the District Court had erred in “dismissing” the numbers theory. Accordingly, the judgment of acquittal was “vacated” and the case “remanded so that the government may try defendant on that portion of the indictment that charges a violation of § 1955 based upon numbering [sic] activities.” 548 F. 2d, at 8 .

Respondent, indicted for federal drug offenses, moved before trial and twice during trial for dismissal of two counts of the indictment on the ground that his defense had been prejudiced by preindictment delay. At the close of all the evidence the trial court granted respondent's motion.

Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U.S. 117 (1978), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a Maryland law prohibiting oil producers and refiners from operating service stations within its borders. The challengers, including Exxon, claimed that the law violated the Dormant Commerce Clause. Justice Stevens wrote for the majority, which disagreed with Exxon et al.: "Since Maryland's entire gasoline supply flows in interstate commerce and since there are no local producers or refiners, such claims of disparate treatment between interstate and local commerce would be meritless." Exxon challenged the Maryland statute in Circuit Court which ruled the statute invalid. The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed the ruling.

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hiram Hill et al., or TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case and the Court's first interpretation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. After the discovery of the snail darter fish in the Little Tennessee River in August 1973, a lawsuit was filed alleging that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)'s Tellico Dam construction was in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Plaintiffs argued dam construction would destroy critical habitat and endanger the population of snail darters. It was decided by a 6-3 vote, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hill, et al.

After the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed an unfair labor practice complaint against respondent employer, respondent requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), that the… Held: The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the NLRB was not entitled to withhold the witness statements under Exemptio 7(A). Pp. 220-243.

Appellants brought suit in a Massachusetts court challenging the State's power to impose an excise tax on federal savings and loan associations as measured by their net operating income, claiming that the tax violates § 5(h) of the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933, which provides that no tax on a federal savings and loan association shall be "greater than that imposed" by the State on similar local thrift and home financing institutions.

An Iowa statute prescribes a so-called single-factor sales formula for apportioning an interstate corporation's income for state income tax purposes. Under this formula, the part of income from such a corporation's sale of tangible personal property attributable to business within the State and hence subject to the state income tax is deemed to be in that proportion which the corporation's gross sales made within the State bear to its total gross sales.

Petitioner special agent of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in the process of investigating a taxpayer's tax liability, issued summonses to respondent bank under authority of § 7602 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (which permits use of a summons "[f]or the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, . . . determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax . . . , or collecting any such liability") to appear before the agent and produce…

On October 7, 1964, respondent motor carrier instituted a proceeding before the Interstate Commerce Commission in which it asked the ICC to reopen proceedings in which the ICC, over respondent's opposition, had approved petitioner's acquisition of several bus companies, alleging that petitioner had not lived up to representations that the acquisitions would not adversely affect respondent.

Respondents brought a class action under Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 23(b)(3) on behalf of themselves and a class of purchasers against petitioners (including an open-end investment fund, its management corporation, and a brokerage firm), seeking to recover the amount by which the allegedly artificially inflated price respondents paid for fund shares exceeded their value.

Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (1978), is a case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the civil procedure subject of ancillary jurisdiction.

During a narcotics raid on petitioner's apartment by an undercover police officer and several plainclothes policemen, the undercover officer was shot and killed, and petitioner was wounded, as were two other persons in the apartment.

) and three television networks (petitioners in No. 76-1121). Held: Respondent's actions against the hyphenates violated § 8(b)(1)(B). Pp. 429-438.

Petitioner, an American manufacturer of consumer electronic products, filed a petition with the Commissioner of Customs, requesting assessment under § 303 of the Tar ff Act of 1930 of countervailing duties on various consumer electronic products exported from Japan to this country.

Respondents, who had purchased securities in reliance on a prospectus, brought this action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly… Held: The "collateral order" exception does not apply to a prejudgment order denying class certification because such an order is subject to revision in the District Court, Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 23(c)(1); involves considerations that are "enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff's cause of action," Mercantile Nat.

Petitioner, who had been denied employment by respondent's radio station, brought an action seeking injunctive relief against respondent on behalf of herself and other females adversely affected by… Held: The order denying class certification was not appealable under § 1292(a)(1). Pp. 480-482. 559 F.2d 209, affirmed. Robert N. Hackett, Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner. Leonard L. Scheinholtz, Pittsburgh, Pa., for respondent. Mr. Justice STEVENS, delivered the

Petitioner nonprofit">nonprofit hospital had a written rule that prohibited employees from soliciting and distributing literature except in certain employee locker rooms and certain adjacent restrooms. The cafeteria was the common gathering place of employees and had been used by petitioner or with its approval for solicitation and distribution of literature to employees for various nonunion purposes.

Appellants, at least five of whom are not residents of Alaska, challenged in state court the constitutionality of the "Alaska Hire" statute (which was enacted professedly for the purpose of reducing… Held: The invalidation of the one-year durational residency requirement does not moot the case, since a controversy still exists between the nonresident appellants, none of whom can qualify as "residents" under the statutory definition, and the appellees, state officials.

Respondents, Negro and Mexican-American residents of Dallas, Tex., brought this action for injunctive and declaratory relief against petitioners, the Mayor and members of the Dallas City Council, alleging that the City Charter's at-large system of electing council members unconstitutionally diluted the vote of racial minorities.

Employees of petitioner corporation sought to distribute a four-part union newsletter in nonworking areas of petitioner's plant during nonworking time. The first and fourth sections urged employees to support the union and extolled union solidarity. The second section encouraged employees to write their legislators to oppose incorporation of the state "right-to-work" statute into a revised state constitution.

Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), was a 1978 United States Supreme Court decision that ruled that an invention that departs from the prior art only in its use of a mathematical algorithm is patent eligible only if there is some other "inventive concept in its application." The algorithm itself must be considered as if it were part of the prior art, and the claim must be considered as a whole.

California v. Texas, 437 U.S. 601 (1978) is a Supreme Court case regarding the jurisdiction of Howard Hughes' estate taxes.

City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that states could not discriminate against another state's articles of commerce.

United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that lands designated as a reservation in Mississippi are "Indian country" as defined by statute, although the reservation was established nearly a century after Indian removal and related treaties. The court ruled that, under the Major Crimes Act, the State has no jurisdiction to try a Native American for crimes covered by that act that occurred on reservation land.

After Calvert Fire Insurance Co. (hereafter respondent) had advised American Mutual Reinsurance Co. (American) that respondent was rescinding its… Held: The judgment is reversed. Pp. 661-667; 667-668. 560 F.2d 792, reversed. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, joined by Mr. Justice STEWART, Mr. Justice WHITE, and Mr. Justice STEVENS, concluded: 1 Issuance of the writ of mandamus by the Court of Appeals impermissibly interfered with petitioner's discretion to control his docket.

Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case against the Arkansas Department of Correction. The litigation lasted almost a decade, from 1969 through 1978. It was the first successful lawsuit filed by an inmate against a correctional institution. The case also clarified the Arkansas prison system's unacceptable punitive measures. Hutto v. Finney was a certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.