Volume 447 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 447 of the United States Reports:

Petition was indicted for, inter alia , aiding and abetting a named Internal Revenue Service agent in accepting unlawful compensation, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, which provides that whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

A Florida statute (§ 659.141(1)) prohibits out-of-state banks, bank holding companies, and trust companies from owning or controlling a business within the State that sells investment advisory… Held: Section 659.141(1) directly burdens interstate commerce in a manner that contravenes the Commerce Clause's implicit limitation on state power. Pp. 37-49.

Section 706(k) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that in "any action or proceeding under this title" the court may allow attorney's fees to "the prevailing party," other than the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the United States.

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 9, 1980 which affirmed the decision of the California Supreme Court in a case that arose out of a free speech dispute between the Pruneyard Shopping Center in Campbell, California, and several local high school students (who wished to canvass signatures for a petition against United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379).

Section 6(b)(1) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) requires that, at least 30 days prior to the "public disclosure of any information" pertaining to a consumer product obtained by the Consumer… Held: Section 6(b)(1) governs the disclosure of records by the Commission pursuant to a request under the FOIA. Pp. 108-124.

Held: 1. The Special Master was fully justified in invoking the doctrine of acquiescence in concluding that the true boundary between California… Held: The Special Master was fully justified in invoking the doctrine of acquiescence in concluding that the true boundary between California and Nevada is that located by two surveys, funded by congressional appropriations in 1872 and 1892, since both States have acquiesced in those boundary lines from the time they were drawn.

These cases concern challenges of several Indian Tribes to efforts by the State of Washington to apply various state taxes and other laws to transactions and activities occurring on Indian reservations. Washington imposes a cigarette excise tax on the "sale, use, consumption, handling, possession or distribution" of cigarettes within the State. It also imposes a general retail sales tax on sales of personal property, including cigarettes.

The Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (Act) provides that any person who leaves a permanent job to enter the military, satisfactorily completes military service, and applies for re-employment within 90 days of being discharged from the military must be reinstated to the former job "without loss of seniority," 38 U.S.C. § 2021(b)(1).

Appellant, a vertically integrated petroleum company doing business in several States, was organized, during the years in question in this case, into three levels of management, one of which was… Held: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not prevent Wisconsin from applying its statutory apportionment formula to appellant's total income. Pp. 219-225.

Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the test for determining whether a zoning ordinance or governmental regulation will be considered a taking is whether such action “substantially advances” a legitimate state interest.

After respondent was indicted for armed robbery of a bank, and while he was in jail pending trial, Government agents contacted an informant who was then an inmate confined in the same… Held: Respondent's statements to the informant should not have been admitted at trial. By intentionally creating a situation likely to induce respondent to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel, the Government violated respondent's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with whether living organisms can be patented. Writing for a five-justice majority, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger held that human-made bacteria could be patented under the patent laws of the United States because such an invention constituted a "manufacture" or "composition of matter". Justice William J. Brennan Jr., along with Justices Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, and Lewis F. Powell Jr., dissented from the Court's ruling, arguing that because Congress had not expressly authorized the patenting of biological organisms, the Court should not extend patent law to cover them. In the decades since the Court's ruling, the case has been recognized as a landmark case for U.S.

While petitioner's appeal from his felony conviction—based on a nonunanimous six-person jury verdict—was pending in the Louisiana Supreme court, Burch v. Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded. Pp. 327-337; 337. La., 371 So.2d 746, reversed and remanded. 1 Mr. Justice BRENNAN, joined by Mr. Justice STEWART, Mr. Justice MARSHALL, and Mr. Justice BLACKMUN, concluded that the constitutional principle announced in Burch v.

Upon the conviction of petitioner, a twice previously convicted felon, in an Oklahoma trial court, the jury imposed a 40-year sentence pursuant to instructions to do so under a provision of the state habitual offender statute mandating such a sentence.

The principal question in this action is whether the general rule under federal reclamation laws limiting irrigation water deliveries from reclamation projects to 160 acres under single ownership applies to certain private lands in Imperial Valley, Cal., being irrigated with Colorado River water through the irrigation system constructed pursuant to the Boulder Canyon Project Act (Project Act).

Section 406 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (Act) provides that "[a]ny person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this title is punishable by imprisonment or fine or both which may not exceed the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy" (the "target offense").

As the result of an accident in which an automobile driven by respondent struck and killed two children, respondent was convicted for failing to reduce speed to avoid the accident in violation of an Illinois statute. Subsequently, based on the same accident, respondent was charged with involuntary manslaughter under another Illinois statute.

Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that individual states, when acting as producers or suppliers rather than as market regulators, may discriminate preferentially against out-of-state residents. This "market participant" doctrine is an exception to the so-called negative commerce clause, which ordinarily deems state regulations invalid where they discriminate against interstate commerce in favor of intrastate commerce for the purpose of economic protectionism.

Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (1980), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court dealing with freedom of speech under the First Amendment. A law passed by the state of Illinois had banned picketing in front of residences, but it had made an exception for labor disputes. A group of activists challenged the law after being convicted for protesting in front of the home of the mayor of Chicago regarding a lack of racial integration. The Court found that the law's distinction–based on the subject matter of a protest–was unjustified and unconstitutional.

This case presents the question whether Rules on Containers (Rules) in a collective-bargaining agreement between the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) and employer organizations in the shipping industry which were adopted in response to the technological innovation of containerized shipping are a lawful work preservation agreement.

Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 530 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court decision addressing the free speech rights of public utility corporations under the First Amendment. In a majority opinion written by Justice Lewis Powell, the Court invalidated an order by the New York Public Service Commission that prohibited utility companies from including inserts on controversial matters of public policy with billing statements.

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980), was an important case decided by the United States Supreme Court that laid out a four-part test for determining when restrictions on commercial speech violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Justice Powell wrote the opinion of the court. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. had challenged a Public Service Commission regulation that prohibited promotional advertising by electric utilities. Justice Brennan, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Stevens wrote separate concurring opinions, and the latter two were both joined by Justice Brennan. Justice Rehnquist dissented.

Held: however, that Tree Fruits leaves neutrals susceptible to whatever consequences may flow from secondary picketing against the consumption of products produced by an employer involved in a labor dispute. Even when product picketing predictably encourages consumers to boycott a neutral altogether, the court concluded, § 8 (b) (4) (ii) (B) provides no protection. 201 U. S. App.

Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a jury must be allowed to consider lesser included offenses, not just capital offense or acquittal.

When an interstate shipment of several securely sealed packages containing 8-millimeter films depicting homosexual activities was mistakenly delivered by a private carrier to a third party rather than to the consignee, employees of the third party opened each of the packages, finding individual film boxes, on one side of which were suggestive drawings, and on the other were explicit descriptions of the contents.

Prior to his trial on federal criminal charges, respondent moved to suppress certain incriminating statements he had made to police officers and federal agents.

Held: A State may apply its workers' compensation scheme to landbased injuries that fall within the coverage of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (Act), as amended in 1972. Held: A State may apply its workers' compensation scheme to landbased injuries that fall within the coverage of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (Act), as amended in 1972. Pp. 717-726.

United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed a district court's suppression of evidence in the criminal prosecution of an Ohio businessman charged with tax evasion. The case concerned both issues of criminal procedure and the application of the exclusionary rule derived from the Fourth Amendment. By a 6–3 margin the Court both reaffirmed its earlier rulings' holding that only the party whose Fourth Amendment protections may have been violated has standing to challenge the evidence seized in the search, and barred lower courts from exercising their supervisory power to exclude such evidence at the trial of third parties.

Respondents were counsel for the plaintiffs in a civil rights class action in Federal District Court against petitioner alleging that its employment policies discriminated on the basis of race. Held: Title 28 U.S.C. § 1927 cannot be read to support the sanction of taxing attorney's fees against counsel who unreasonably extend court proceedings, by defining the term "costs" therein according to the civil rights statutes as including attorney's fees. Pp. 757-763.

After the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) had revoked the authority of Town Court Nursing Center (a nursing home) to provide… Held: The patients have no interest in receiving benefits for care in a particular facility that entitles them, as a matter of constitutional law, to a hearing before HEW and DPW can decertify that facility.

Section 706(c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Act) provides that in the case of an alleged unlawful employment practice occurring in a State having a law prohibiting such practices no charge may be… Held: A literal reading of §§ 706(c) and (e) so as to give the word "filed" the same meaning in both subsections gives full effect to the several policies reflected in the Act.