Volume 449 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 449 of the United States Reports:

from pages 5-6 intentionally omitted] PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner, an inmate of the Illinois State Penitentiary, asks us to review an order dismissing his civil rights action against the respondent corrections officers and directing him to pay counsel fees of $400 for services rendered by the Attorney General of Illinois in representing the respondents in that action. 2 After granting a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a constitutional violation, the…

Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that individuals who bribed a judge for an injunction were not protected by judicial immunity and therefore could be held liable for the damages resulting from the injunction.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), was a court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Kentucky statute was unconstitutional and in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacked a nonreligious, legislative purpose. The statute required the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall of each public classroom in the state. The copies of the Ten Commandments were purchased with private funding, but the Court ruled that because they were being placed in public classrooms they were in violation of the First Amendment.

Petitioner county obtained an injunction in a California state court prohibiting the owner of a tract of land from selling water from a well on the premises for use outside the county in violation of a conditional use permit required by a county zoning ordinance and allowing the sale of water only for use within the county. The California Supreme Court affirmed, and this Court dismissed the tract owner's appeal.

Under § 301(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to set 1977 effluent limitations for categories of point sources, requiring such sources to meet standards based on application of the "best practicable control technology currently available" (BPT), and 1987 limitations, requiring all point sources to meet standards based on application of the "best available technology economically achievable" (BAT).

At a hearing before respondent's criminal trial, a Missouri court denied, in part, respondent's motion to suppress, on Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds, certain evidence that had been seized… Held: The Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent's inability to obtain federal habeas corpus relief upon his Fourth Amendment claim renders the doctrine of collateral estoppel inapplicable to his § 1983 suit.

United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 1980. In a five-to-four decision, the Court held that a provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, which allows the federal government to appeal certain criminal sentences after they are imposed, did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Though such an appeal could potentially lead to the defendant's sentence being lengthened, the Court concluded that because "the Double Jeopardy Clause does not require that a sentence be given a degree of finality that prevents its later increase", this practice did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

1 Held : Appellee county's taking as its own, under the authority of a Florida statute, the interest accruing on an interpleader fund deposited in the registry of a county court was a taking violative of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, where a fee, based on the amount of the principal deposited as prescribed by another Florida statute, was also charged for the court clerk's services in receiving the fund into the registry, and where the deposited fund was concededly…

U.S. Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz 449 U.S. 166 (1980) is an appeal case focusing on cementing specific qualifications for retired railroad employees to receive dual retirement benefits. The Railroad Retirement Board supports the interest of the railroad system in upholding the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974. The unconstitutionality of the 1974 act is the primary argument used against the board.

United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that congress can repeal or modify a statutorily defined formula for annual cost-of-living increases to the compensation of federal judges, but Congress must act with respect to any particular increase before the increase takes effect.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a complaint against respondent and several other major oil companies, alleging that the FTC had "reason to believe" that the companies were violating § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (Act), which prohibits unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce.

The Board of Trustees of petitioner Delaware State College formally voted to deny tenure to respondent professor on the basis of recommendations of the College's tenure committee and Faculty Senate. During the pendency of respondent's grievance before the Board's grievance committee, the Trustees on June 26, 1974, told him that pursuant to College policy he would be offered a 1-year "terminal" contract that would expire June 30, 1975.

Under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, compensation for a permanent partial disability must be determined in one of two ways. First, if the injury is of a kind specifically identified in the schedule set forth in §§ 8(c)(1)-(20) of the Act, the injured employee is entitled to receive two-thirds of his average weekly wages for a specific number of weeks, regardless of whether his earning capacity has been impaired.

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302 (1981), was a conflict of laws case decided by the United States Supreme Court.

Held: A state criminal court is not required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to conduct a hearing out of the jury's presence whenever a defendant contends that a witness'… Held: A state criminal court is not required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to conduct a hearing out of the jury's presence whenever a defendant contends that a witness' identification of him was arrived at improperly. Pp. 345-349.

Federal agents, aware that respondent had been indicted on federal drug charges and had retained counsel, met with her without her counsel's knowledge or… Held: Assuming, arguendo , that the Sixth Amendment was violated in the circumstances of this case, nevertheless the dismissal of the indictment was not appropriate, absent a showing of any adverse consequence to the representation respondent received or to the fairness of the proceedings leading to her conviction.

Respondent is lead counsel for the plaintiffs in four consolidated product-liability suits in Federal District Court against petitioner and other manufacturers. Held: Orders denying motions to disqualify the opposing party's counsel in a civil case are not appealable final decisions under § 1291.

Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981), was a Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a company (in this case, the Upjohn company) could invoke the attorney–client privilege to protect communications made between company lawyers and non-management employees. In doing so, the Court rejected the narrower control group test that had previously governed many organizational attorney–client privilege issues. Under the control group test, only employees who exercised direct control over the managerial decisions of the company were eligible to have their communications with corporate lawyers protected. The case also expanded the scope of the work-product doctrine.

United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court decision clarifying the reasonable suspicion standard for the investigative stop of a vehicle.

Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 prohibits fraud in the "offer or sale" of any securities. Held: The pledge of stock to a bank as collateral for a loan is an "offer or sale" of a security under § 17(a). Pp. 428-431. (a) Obtaining a loan secured by a pledge of stock unmistakably involves a "disposition of [an] interest in a security, for value" within the statutory definition.

While respondent was serving a sentence in a Pennsylvania correctional institution, the Camden County, N. J., prosecutor's office lodged a detainer against him and sought custody pursuant to Art. IV of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (Detainer Agreement) in order to try him in New Jersey on criminal charges.

Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court case which found no violation of the equal protection or commerce clauses in a Minnesota state statute banning retail sale of milk in plastic nonreturnable, nonrefillable containers, but permitting such sale in other nonreturnable, nonrefillable containers.

Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the citizenship status of Feodor Fedorenko, a naturalized citizen who had lied about his past as a guard at a Nazi death camp on his visa and citizenship applications. The court held that because Fedorenko lied on his visa application, his visa and citizenship were invalid. Fedorenko was a Ukrainian-born soldier who fought in World War II, was captured, and served as a guard at Treblinka extermination camp for over a year. He emigrated to the United States in 1949, lying on his visa application to cover up his time at Treblinka. He lived a quiet life in the U.S.

Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, was a United States Supreme Court case that limited the jurisdiction of federal courts to review state court factual determinations under 28 USC § 2254(e). Writing for the majority, Justice William Rehnquist asserted the "interest in federalism recognized by Congress" in the habeas statute. Rehnquist's decision in Mata marked a turning point for federal habeas review.

Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981), was a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state could allow the broadcast and still photography coverage of criminal trials. While refraining from formally overruling Estes v. Texas, which in 1965 held that media coverage was "infringing the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," it effectively did so.

Section 706(b) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that employment discrimination charges "shall not be made public" by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and bars public disclosure of anything "said or done" during informal Commission settlement endeavors.

Held: because there was "relevant evidence" as to him. See Thompson v. Louisville , 362 U.S. 199 , 206, 80 S.Ct. 624, 629, 4 L.Ed.2d 654 (1960). The court therefore applied the Kimbrough rule and held that Blair had waived his right to raise the insufficiency-of-the-evidence issue on appeal. 4 The Commonwealth filed a petition for rehearing.