Volume 445 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 445 of the United States Reports:

Held: Under the provisions of the Civil Service Retirement Act whereby a deceased federal employee's legitimate children under 18 years… Held: Under the provisions of the Civil Service Retirement Act whereby a deceased federal employee's legitimate children under 18 years of age qualify for survivors' benefits but "recognized natural" children under 18 may recover only if they "lived with the employee . . . in a regular parent-child relationship," a recognized natural child…

Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the spousal privilege and its application in the law of evidence. In it, the Court held that the witness-spouse alone has a privilege to refuse to testify adversely; the witness may be neither compelled to testify nor foreclosed from testifying.

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the prohibition of firearms possession by felons under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.

Held: A stevedore's lien for the amount of its compensation payment to an injured longshoreman under the Longshoremen's and Harbor… Held: A stevedore's lien for the amount of its compensation payment to an injured longshoreman under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act against the longshoreman's recovery in a negligence action against the shipowner may not be reduced by an amount representing the stevedore's proportionate share of the longshoreman's…

California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court created a two-part test for the application of the state action immunity doctrine that it had previously developed in Parker v. Brown.

Held: however, that the Fifth Amendment requires immunity statutes to preclude all uses of immunized testimony. Such a requirement would be inconsistent with the principle that the privilege does not extend to consequences of a noncriminal nature, such as threats of liability in civil suits, disgrace in the community, or the loss of employment.

Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (1980), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the Freedom of Information Act. The Supreme Court ruled that Henry Kissinger was not required under the Act to turn over transcripts of phone conversations he made as an adviser to President Richard Nixon.

Under federal grants awarded by the National Institute of Arthritis, Metabolism, and Digestive Diseases (NIAMDD) (a federal agency), the University… Held: HEW need not produce the requested data because they are not "agency records" within the meaning of the FOIA. Data generated by a privately controlled organization which has received federal grants (grantee), but which data has not at any time been obtained by the agency, are not "agency records" accessible under the FOIA.

Held: however, only if the Regional Administrator finds a significant degree of public interest in the proposed modification. The General Counsel refrained from addressing the second certified issue because Kilroy’s brief did not challenge specifically the adequacy of the record supporting the permit modification.

Chiarella v. United States, 445 U.S. 222 (1980), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employee of a printer handling corporate takeover bids who deduced target companies' identities and dealt in their stock without disclosing his knowledge of impending takeovers, had not violated § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

Held : Title 25 U.S.C. § 357, which provides that lands allotted in severalty to Indians may be "condemned" for any public purpose under the laws of the State or Territory where located, does not authorize a state or local government to "condemn" allotted Indian trust lands by physical occupation.

Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980), (sometimes erroneously cited as Rummel v. Estell) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a life sentence with the possibility of parole under Texas' three strikes law for a felony fraud crime, where the offense and the defendant's two prior offenses involved approximately $230 of fraudulent activity (worth $847 in 2023 dollars, or about four 40-hour weeks at the contemporary Texas minimum wage of $1.40/hour).

Held: "The statute authorizes an injunction against the commercial manufacture, distribution or exhibition of obscene material only. . . . Were a Texas court to issue an overbroad injunction restricting nonobscene (and therefore protected) matter, it would exceed both its constitutional and its statutory authority." 559 F.2d 1286 , 1292 (1977) (emphasis in original).

Respondents, holders of credit cards issued by petitioner bank, sued petitioner for damages in Federal District Court, seeking to represent both their own interests and those of a class of similarly situated credit card customers. The complaint, based on the National Bank Act, alleged that usurious finance charges had been made against the accounts of respondents and the putative class.

A federal indictment charged respondent, then a Tennessee state senator, with accepting money as fees for using his public office to block the extradition of a defendant from Tennessee to Illinois, and for agreeing to introduce state legislation which would enable four persons to obtain master electricians' licenses they had been unable to obtain by way of existing examination processes.

In connection with an investigation of hazards in the operation of television receivers, respondent Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) obtained various accident reports from television… Held: There is a case or controversy as required to establish jurisdiction pursuant to Art. III even though the CPSC agrees with the requesters that the documents should be released under the FOIA.

Respondent, after twice being denied parole from a federal prison, brought suit against petitioners in Federal District Court challenging the… Held: An action brought on behalf of a class does not become moot upon expiration of the named plaintiff's substantive claim, even though class certification has been denied, since the proposed representative of the class retains a "personal stake" in obtaining class certification sufficient to assure that Art. III values are not…

Appellant is a corporation organized under the laws of New York, where it has its principal place of business and its "commercial domicile." It does business in many States, including Vermont, where it engages in the wholesale and retail marketing of petroleum products. Vermont imposed a corporate income tax, calculated by means of an apportionment formula, upon "foreign source" dividend income received by appellant from its subsidiaries and affiliates doing business abroad.

Held: which is permissible under Frisbie , despite respondent's unlawful arrest. Suppression would be required in the Davis situation, but not here, regardless of whether the respective arrests were made without any reasonable suspicion or with something just short of probable cause.

Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state prisoners are entitled to notice, an adversarial hearing, and counsel before their involuntary transfer to state mental hospitals for treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that public defenders cannot be fired solely based on their political affiliation.

Section 1 of the Indian General Allotment Act of 1887 authorizes the President to allot to each Indian residing on a reservation specified acreage of agricultural and grazing land within the reservation; § 2 provides that all such allotments shall be selected by the Indians so as to include improvements made by them; and § 5 provides that the United States shall retain title to such allotted lands in trust for the benefit of the allottees.

Held : The District Court properly considered, as one factor in imposing consecutive sentences on petitioner who had pleaded guilty to two counts of using a telephone to facilitate the distribution of heroin, petitioner's refusal to cooperate with Government officials investigating a related criminal conspiracy to distribute heroin in which he was a confessed participant. Pp. 556-562.

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning warrantless entry into a private home in order to make a felony arrest. The Court struck down a New York statute providing for such warrantless entries because the Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not be reasonably crossed without a warrant. The court, however, did specify that an arrest warrant (as opposed to a search warrant) would have sufficed for entry into the suspect's residence if there had been reason to believe that the suspect was within the home.

Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court held that a municipality has no immunity from liability under Section 1983 flowing from its constitutional violations and may not assert the good faith of its officers as a defense to such liability.

Petitioner was convicted under the District of Columbia Code of the separate statutory offenses of rape and killing the same victim in the perpetration of the rape. Held: The Court of Appeals was mistaken in believing that Congress authorized consecutive sentences in the circumstances of this case, and that error denied petitioner his right to be deprived of liberty as punishment for criminal conduct only to the extent authorized by Congress. Pp. 686-695.

The Carey Act of 1894, in order to aid covered States in the reclamation of desert lands, "authorize[s] and empower[s]" the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), with the President's approval, upon proper application by a State to donate, grant, and patent such desert lands, not exceeding a specified acreage, as the State should cause to be irrigated, reclaimed, and occupied, provided however, that the lands may be restored to the public domain if the requirements as to…

Held: 8 "The controlling principle consistently expounded in our holdings is that the scope of the remedy is determined by the nature and extent of the constitutional violation. Swann [v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education , 402 U.S. 1 , 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971)], at 16." 9 This was not a novel principle then any more than it is now.