Volume 441 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 441 of the United States Reports:

were dislocated by HUD's subsequent closing of an Indianapolis, Ind., housing project, and HUD refused to provide relocation benefits for these tenants. Petitioners then initiated this action in Federal District Court, claiming that they were "displaced persons" under the written order clause of § 101(6). The District Court rejected the tenants' statutory construction and granted summary judgment for HUD.

Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state may refuse to hire a non-citizen as a public school teacher if they could be but do not wish to become a citizen.

Section 812 of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (Act) provides that the rights granted by § 804 against racial discrimination in the sales or rental of housing "may be enforced by civil actions in appropriate United States district courts." Respondents (the village of Bellwood, one Negro and four white residents of Bellwood, and one Negro resident of a neighboring municipality) brought separate actions in District Court under § 812 against petitioners (two real estate brokerage…

Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130 (1979), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court that invalidated a Louisiana statute allowing a conviction upon a nonunanimous verdict from a jury of six for a petty offense. The statute allowed for conviction if only five jurors agreed, and this was held to be a violation of the Sixth Amendment.

Arizona Public Service Co. v. Snead, 441 U.S. 141 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a New Mexico tax on the generation of electricity was invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Snead was the director of the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department.

Petitioner instituted a diversity action in Federal District Court against the respondents, a television network and two of its employees,… Held: When a member of the press is alleged to have circulated damaging falsehoods and is sued for injury to the plaintiff's reputation, there is no privilege under the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press barring the plaintiff from inquiring into the editorial processes of those responsible for the…

Respondents are independent gasoline dealers, one of which operates in Arizona and several other States, and two of which operate in the vicinity of Tucson, Ariz. They brought civil antitrust actions in the District Court in Arizona against several large oil companies, including petitioners.

Pursuant to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the District Court, finding probable cause to believe that petitioner was a member of a conspiracy the purpose of… Held: The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit per se a covert entry performed for the purpose of installing otherwise legal electronic bugging equipment. Implicit in decisions such as Irvine v. California , 347 U.S. 128, 74 S.Ct. 381, 98 L.Ed. 561, and Silverman v.

Petitioner, as a party to numerous Government contracts, was required to comply with Executive Orders 11246 and 11375, which charge the Secretary of Labor with ensuring that corporations that benefit… Held: The FOIA is exclusively a disclosure statute and affords petitioner no private right of action to enjoin agency disclosure.

Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court decision, which held that the United States Congress may enact legislation governing wildlife on federal lands.

Parham v. Hughes, 441 U.S. 347 (1979), was a case the Supreme Court of the United States heard and decided in 1979. The decision upheld a Georgia law that barred fathers of illegitimate children from bringing wrongful death claims without imposing the same burden on mothers.

Respondent, while under arrest for certain crimes and after being advised of his rights under Miranda v. Held: An explicit statement of waiver is not invariably necessary to support a finding that the defendant waived the right to counsel guaranteed by the Miranda case.

Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court family law case which held that a New York law, which allowed unwed mothers, but not unwed fathers, a veto over the adoption of that couple's children, was discriminatory, and violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that set the standard for involuntary commitment for treatment by raising the burden of proof required to commit persons for psychiatric treatment from the usual civil burden of proof of "preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence".

Appellant Japanese shipping companies' vessels carry cargo containers which, like the ships, are owned by appellants, are based, registered, and subjected to property tax in Japan, and are used exclusively in foreign commerce. A number of appellants' containers were temporarily present in appellee county and cities in California, and appellees levied property taxes on the containers. The California Supreme Court upheld the tax as applied. Held : 1.

Respondents, shareholders of an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA), brought this derivative suit in Federal District Court against several of the… Held: In suits alleging violations of the ICA and IAA, federal courts should, as a matter of federal law, apply state law governing the authority of independent directors to discontinue derivative suits to the extent such law is consistent with the policies of the ICA and the IAA.

Petitioner provides its employees with in-plant cafeteria and vending machine services. Held: In-plant cafeteria and vending machine food and beverage prices and services are "terms and conditions of employment" subject to mandatory collective bargaining under §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(d) of the NLRA. Pp. 494-503.

The Government initiated condemnation proceedings to acquire land on which respondent, a private nonprofit">nonprofit organization, operated summer camps. Before trial, respondent rejected the Government's offer to pay the fair market value of the property, demanding instead the cost of developing functionally equivalent substitute facilities at a new site.

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of various conditions of confinement of inmates held in federal short-term detention facilities. The Court narrowly found that while treatment of pre-trial detainees is subject to constraint by the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, all of the policies challenged in the case passed constitutional scrutiny.

brought suit in Federal District Court claiming that New Jersey officials, by denying her emergency assistance funds because she was not… Held: inter alia , that the complaint stated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (which provides that every person who, under color of any state statute or regulation subjects another to the deprivation of any rights 'secured by the Constitution and laws' shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law or suit in equity) and…

Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case which interpreted Congressional silence in the face of earlier interpretations of similar laws to determine that Title IX of the Higher Education Act provides an implied cause of action.

Section 14(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) provides that in the case of an alleged unlawful practice occurring in a State which has a law prohibiting discrimination in employment because of age and authorizing a state authority to grant and seek relief from such discriminatory practice, no suit may be brought under § 7(c) of the ADEA before the expiration of 60 days after proceedings have been commenced under the state law, unless such…

Respondent engaged in a fraudulent "short selling" scheme, by placing orders with brokers to sell certain shares of stock which he believed had peaked in price and which he falsely… Held: Section 17(a)(1) prohibits frauds against brokers as well as investors. Pp. 771-779. (a) Nothing on the face of § 17(a)(1) indicates that it applies solely to frauds directed against investors. Rather, its language requires only that the fraud occur "in" an "offer or sale" of securities.

Respondent was convicted of a federal drug offense upon a guilty plea. Held: A conviction based on a guilty plea is not subject to collateral attack when all that can be shown is a formal violation of Rule 11. Such a violation is neither constitutional nor jurisdictional.