Volume 462 — United States Reports

This is a list of all United States Supreme Court cases from volume 462 of the United States Reports:

Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exempts from disclosure under the Act "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a… Held: Under Exemption 5, attorney work-product is exempt from mandatory disclosure without regard to the status of the litigation for which it was prepared. By its own terms, Exemption 5 requires reference to whether discovery would normally be required during litigation with the agency.

The Stock-Raising Homestead Act of 1916 (SRHA) provided for the settlement of homesteads on lands the surface of which was "chiefly valuable for grazing and raising crops." Section 9 of the SRHA… Held: Gravel found on lands patented under the SRHA is a mineral reserved to the United States within the meaning of § 9 of the Act. Pp. 42-60.

Held: however, that the uniformity provision of the Bankruptcy Clause 13 did not require invalidation of a geographically defined class of debtors. See Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S. 102, 161 (1974). In that litigation, creditors of bankrupt railroads challenged a statute that was passed to reorganize eight major railroads in the northeast and midwest regions of the country.

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court decision that held valid a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rule that during the licensing of nuclear power plants, the permanent storage of nuclear waste should be assumed to have no environmental impact.

BankAmerica Corp v. United States, 462 U.S. 122 (1983) began in 1975. This is a landmark antitrust case which interprets Section 8 of the Clayton Act. The United States government brought test cases against three separate banks along with their parent holding companies, including mutual life insurance firms. The case also involved individuals who sat on the boards at both institutions. The case was decided by a 7–2 majority, with the Supreme Court reversing the Ninth Circuit. The defendants did not admit guilty. This case is an antitrust case that was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Department of Justice claimed there were violations of the Clayton Act (Section 8), which prohibits individuals from serving on the boards of corporations that are separate and competing.

respondent local union brought a formal grievance under the collective-bargaining agreement based on petitioner employee's alleged improper discharge. Held: In this type of suit, the 6-month limitations period in § 10(b) governs claims against both the employer and the union. Pp. 158-172.

Exxon Corp. v. Eagerton, 462 U.S. 176 (1983), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld an Alabama law preventing oil and gas producers from passing on severance tax increases to consumers. The court ruled that the law was not in violation of the Contract Clause or the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This case arose when Exxon argued that the law passed by the state of Alabama was unconstitutional because it interfered with private contracts and treated companies like Exxon unfairly. The court ruled against Exxon arguing that states could create laws that affect contracts as long as they apply to the majority and served a public purpose.

Section 542(a) of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 (Act) requires an entity, other than a custodian, in possession of property of the debtor that the trustee in bankruptcy can use, sell, or lease… Held: The reorganization estate includes property of the debtor that has been seized by a creditor prior to the filing of a petition for reorganization. Pp. 202-209.

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), is a Fourth Amendment case. Gates overruled Aguilar v. Texas and Spinelli v. United States, thereby replacing the Aguilar–Spinelli test for probable cause with the "totality of the circumstances" test.

Held: nor do we now hold, that military personnel are barred from all redress in civilian courts for constitutional wrongs suffered in the course of military service. See, e. g., Brown v. Glines, 444 U. S. 348 (1980); Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733 (1974); Frontiero v. *305 Richardson, 411 U. S. 677 (1973).

A Virginia trial court accepted respondent's plea of guilty to a charge of manufacturing a controlled substance. Held: 1 1. The § 1983 action is not barred on the asserted ground that under principles of collateral estoppel generally applied by the Virginia courts, respondent's conviction would bar his subsequent civil challenge to police conduct, and that a federal court must therefore give the state conviction the same effect under 28 U.S.C. §…

New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324 (1983), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the application of New Mexico's laws to on-reservation hunting and fishing by nonmembers of the Tribe is preempted by the operation of federal law.

Respondent, a Negro male, after being discharged by petitioner employer in 1977, filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which, on November 9, 1978,… Held: The filing of the class action tolled the statute of limitations for respondent and other members of the putative class.

A provision of the Bank Robbery Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b), imposes criminal sanctions on "[w]hoever takes and carries away, with intent to steal or purloin, any property or money or any other thing of… Held: Section 2113(b) is not limited to common-law larceny, but also proscribes petitioner's crime of obtaining money under false pretenses. Pp. 358-362. (a) The statutory language does not suggest that it covers only common-law larceny.

Petitioner, an aerospace engineer employed at the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, a facility operated by the National Aeronautics and Space… Held: Because petitioner's claims arise out of an employment relationship that is governed by comprehensive procedural and substantive provisions giving meaningful remedies against the United States, it would be inappropriate for this Court to supplement that regulatory scheme with a new nonstatutory damages remedy. Pp. 374-390.

Acting on unfair labor practice charges filed by an employee of respondent, petitioner National Labor Relations Board found that… Held: The burden of proof placed on the employer under the Board's rule is consistent with §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3), as well as with § 10(c) of the Act, which provides that the Board must prove an unlawful labor practice by a "preponderance of the evidence." The Board's construction of the statute, which is not mandated by the Act, extends…

A corporation in Illinois, operated by Roger Smith, sold a new airplane to respondents, who paid the sale price in full and took possession of the plane. Held: State laws, such as the Illinois law, allowing undocumented or unrecorded transfers of interests in aircraft to affect innocent third parties are pre-empted by the federal Act.

City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed its abortion rights jurisprudence. In a majority opinion by Lewis F. Powell Jr., the Court struck down several provisions of an abortion law of Akron, Ohio, including portions found to be unconstitutionally vague.

Missouri statutes require abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy to be performed in a hospital (§ 188.025); require a pathology report for each abortion performed (§ 188.047); require the presence of… Held: Section 188.025 is unconstitutional, but §§ 188.047, 188.030.3, and 188.028 are constitutional. 655 F.2d 848 (8th Cir., 1981), affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded; 664 F.2d 687 (8th Cir., 1981), affirmed.

Appellant, an obstetrician-gynecologist, was convicted after a Virginia state-court trial for violating Virginia statutory provisions that make it unlawful to perform an abortion during the second… Held: The Virginia abortion statute was not unconstitutionally applied to appellant on the asserted ground that the State failed to allege in the indictment and to prove lack of medical necessity for the abortion.

Respondent was injured in the course of his employment while employed by petitioner as a loading helper on petitioner's coal barge. Held: A longshoreman may bring a negligence action under § 5(b) against the owner of a vessel who acts as his own stevedore, even though the longshoreman has received compensation from the owner-employer under § 4.

The Pecos River Compact was entered into by Texas and New Mexico (and approved by Congress) to govern allocation of the waters of the Pecos River, which rises in New Mexico and flows into Texas. Held: Exceptions of the Government and New Mexico to the Master's recommendation that either the United States Commissioner or some other third party be given a vote on the Commission and be empowered to participate in all Commission deliberations are sustained.

Title 19 U.S.C. § 1581(a) authorizes customs officers to board any vessel at any time and at any place in the United States to examine the vessel's manifest and other documents. Held: The action of the customs officers in boarding the sailboat pursuant to § 1581(a) was "reasonable," and was therefore consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

In 1960, the Cuban Government established respondent to serve as an official autonomous credit institution for foreign trade with full juridical capacity of its own. Held: Under principles of equity common to international law and federal common law, petitioner may apply the claimed setoff, notwithstanding the fact that respondent was established as a separate juridical entity. Pp.619-633.

Held: “[tjhe fact that the protection of the public might, in the abstract, have been accomplished by ‘less intrusive’ means does not, by itself, render the search unreasonable.” Id., at 447 . See also United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 557, n. 12 (1976).

After petitioner Puerto Rican educational officials had demoted respondent school employees and shortly before Puerto Rico's 1-year statute of limitations would have… Held: Respondents' individual actions were timely. The parties agree that the limitations period was tolled during the pendency of the class action. The Court of Appeals correctly held that the limitations period began to run anew after the denial of class certification, as provided by Puerto Rican law.

Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee with respect to compensation, terms,… Held: The pregnancy limitation in petitioner's amended health plan discriminates against male employees in violation of § 703(a)(1). Pp. 676-685.

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that it does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for a trained police dog to sniff a person's luggage or property in a public place.

Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the legality of redistricting, and possibly gerrymandering, in the state of New Jersey.

An Indiana statute requires the county auditor to post notice in the county courthouse of the sale of real property for nonpayment of property taxes and to publish notice once each week for three… Held: The manner of notice provided to appellant did not meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 795- 780.

Section 3622(b) of the Postal Reorganization Act (Act) provides that the Postal Rate Commission shall recommend rates for the classes of mail in accordance with nine… Held: Although the Act divides ratemaking responsibility between the Rate Commission and the Postal Service, the legislative history and the Act's structure demonstrate that ratemaking authority was vested primarily in the Rate Commission. Thus, its interpretation of § 3622(b) is due deference. Pp. 820-821. 2.

The Wyoming Legislature consists of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Held: Wyoming has not violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by permitting Niobrara County to have its own representative. Pp. 842-848.

Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that aggravating circumstances in the death penalty context must meaningfully narrow the number of people eligible for the death penalty. As long as a defendant does have an aggravating circumstance, it does not matter if the one actually cited to justify the death penalty in their case is set aside.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the one-house legislative veto violated the constitutional separation of powers.

Since 1938, several dams have been constructed along the Columbia-Snake River system, severely reducing the number of anadromous fish that migrate between the… Held: The Special Master's recommendation is adopted, and the action is dismissed without prejudice to Idaho's right to bring new proceedings whenever it shall appear that it is being deprived of its equitable share of anadromous fish. Pp. 1024-1029. (a) The doctrine of equitable apportionment is applicable here.

Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983), applied the rule first announced in Edwards v. Arizona (1981) and clarified the manner in which a suspect may waive his right under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) to have counsel present during interrogation by the police.