Volume 463 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 463 of the United States Reports:

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983), commonly known in U.S. administrative law as State Farm, is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning regulations requiring passive restraints in cars. Decided in 1983, one year before Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Court found that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had not provided a "reasoned analysis" for rescinding regulations that required either airbags or automatic seat belts in new cars. It held that the arbitrary and capricious standard for reviewing agency action to enact regulations also applied to changing regulations.

Title 39 U.S.C. § 3001(e)(2) prohibits the mailing of unsolicited advertisements for contraceptives. Held: As applied to appellee's proposed mailings, § 3001(e)(2) is unconstitutional. Pp. 64-75.

New York's Human Rights Law forbids discrimination in employee benefit plans on the basis of pregnancy, and its Disability Benefits Law requires employers to pay sick leave benefits to employees… Held: Given § 514(a)'s plain language, and ERISA's structure and legislative history, both the Human Rights Law and the Disability Benefits Law "relate to any employee benefit plan" within the meaning of § 514(a). Pp. 95-100. 2.

Held: and we affirm. The Court of Appeals reached a different conclusion concerning TCID and the Project farmers that it now represents. The Court of Appeals conceded that the Project's interests, *138 like the Reservation's interests, were represented in Orr Ditch by the United States and thus that TCID, like the Tribe, stands with respect to that litigation in privity with the United States.

Section 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act prohibits secondary boycotts, but its so-called "publicity proviso" exempts from the prohibition publicity advising the public that a… Held: The handbilling does not come within the protection of the "publicity proviso." Pp. 153-157. (a) The only publicity exempted from the secondary boycott prohibition is publicity intended to inform the public that the primary employer's product is "distributed by" the secondary employer.

California imposes a corporate franchise tax geared to income. Held: California's application of the unitary business principle to appellant and its foreign subsidiaries was proper. Pp. 175-180. (a) The taxpayer has the burden of showing by "clear and convincing evidence" that the state tax results in extra-territorial values being taxed.

United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the United States is accountable in money damages for alleged breaches of trust in connection with its management of forest resources on allotted lands of the Quinault Reservation.

A police officer of petitioner city wounded a suspect who was attempting to flee from the scene of a breaking and entering. Held: This Court does not lack jurisdiction to review the Massachusetts court's opinion on the asserted ground that the decision rested on an adequate and independent state ground. The Massachusetts court's opinion premised petitioner's liability squarely on the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments. P.242. 2.

Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the mere existence of a biological link between an unwed father and a child does not merit protection under the Due Process Clause regarding adoption; the unwed father must earn rights under that clause by coming forward and contributing to the child's development.

Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case concerned with the scope of the Eighth Amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Mr. Helm, who had written a check from a fictitious account and had reached his seventh nonviolent felony conviction since 1964, received a mandatory sentence, under South Dakota law at that time, to life in prison with no parole. Petitioner Mr. Solem was the warden of the South Dakota State Penitentiary at the time. The Court overturned the sentence on the grounds that it was "cruel and unusual". Justice Powell wrote for the five-member majority, while Chief Justice Burger wrote for the four-member dissent.

Title I of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA) defines eight categories of natural gas production, specifies the maximum lawful price that… Held: The FERC's exclusion of pipeline production from the NGPA's pricing scheme is inconsistent with the statutory mandate and would frustrate the regulatory policy that Congress sought to implement; the FERC, however, has discretion in deciding which transfer—intracorporate or downstream—should receive the "first sale" treatment.

Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court, for the first time, addressed whether the due process requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment allows defendants, who were found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) of a misdemeanor crime, to be involuntarily confined to a mental institution until such times as they are no longer a danger to themselves or others with few other criteria or procedures limiting the actions of the state.

Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case examining the constitutionality of a state tax deduction granted to taxpaying parents for school-related expenses, including expenses incurred from private secular and religious schools. The plaintiffs claimed that a Minnesota statute, allowing tax deductions for both public and private school expenses, subsidized religious instruction since parents who paid tuition to religious schools received a larger deduction than parents of public school students, who incurred no tuition expenses. In a 5–4 decision, the Court upheld the statute.

United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S. 418 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether United States Department of Justice Civil Division attorneys were required to show particularized need in order to obtain disclosure.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(C)(i) permits disclosure otherwise prohibited by Rule 6 of matters occurring before a grand jury "when so directed by a… Held: The IRS's civil tax audit is not "preliminar[y] to or in connection with a judicial proceeding" within the meaning of Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i), and hence no disclosure is available under that Rule. The Rule contemplates only uses related fairly directly to some identifiable litigation, pending or anticipated.

When negotiations for a new collective-bargaining agreement between petitioner employer and the union representing certain of its employees reached an impasse, some of the employees went out on… Held: Respondents' causes of action for misrepresentation and breach of contract are not pre-empted. Pp. 498-512.

the United States and various Indian Tribes brought actions in Federal District Court, seeking an adjudication of rights in certain streams in Montana. Held: The federal courts had jurisdiction to hear the suits brought both by the United States and the Indian Tribes, and a dismissal or stay would have been improper if there was no jurisdiction in the concurrent state actions.

Petitioner black and Hispanic police officers were appointed to the New York City Police Department upon achieving passing scores on the examinations administered to make entry-level appointments. Held: The judgment is affirmed. 633 F.2d 232 (CA 2, 1980), affirmed. Christopher Crowley, New York City, for petitioners. Leonard Koerner, New York City, for respondents. [The balance of this page intentionally left blank]

While serving as an officer of a broker-dealer, petitioner, who specialized in providing investment analysis of insurance company securities to… Held: Two elements for establishing a violation of § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by corporate insiders are the existence of a relationship affording access to inside information intended to be available only for a corporate purpose, and the unfairness of allowing a corporate insider to take advantage of that information by trading without…

Section 307(f) of the Clean Air Act provides that in a proceeding for judicial review of an emission standard promulgated under the Act, the… Held: Absent some degree of success on the merits by the claimant, it is not "appropriate" for a federal court to award attorney's fees under § 307(f). Pp. 682-694. (a) There is nothing in § 307(f) to indicate that Congress meant to abandon historic fee-shifting principles and intuitive notions of fairness when it enacted that section.

Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held California may properly require respondent to obtain a state license in order to sell liquor for off-premises consumption.

After respondent was convicted of robbery and assault in a jury trial in a New York state court, counsel was appointed to represent him on appeal. Held: Defense counsel assigned to prosecute an appeal from a criminal conviction does not have a constitutional duty to raise every nonfrivolous issue requested by the defendant.

Held: that the warrantless reopening of the container following its reseizure violated respondent’s right under the Fourth Amendment “to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures . . . .” We disagree. *771 The Fourth Amendment protects legitimate expectations of privacy rather than simply places.

Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), was a landmark court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that government funding for chaplains was constitutional because of the "unique history" of the United States. Three days before the ratification of the First Amendment in 1791, containing the Establishment Clause, the federal legislature authorised hiring a chaplain for opening sessions with prayer.

Respondent constru tion company hired nonunion workers for a project near Port Arthur, Tex., and a citizen protest against the company's hiring… Held: An alleged conspiracy to infringe First Amendment rights is not a violation of § 1985(3) unless it is proved that the State is involved in the conspiracy or the aim of the conspiracy is to influence the activity of the State. Moreover, the kind of animus that § 1985(3) requires is not present in this case. Pp. 830-839.

Until 1959, Rev.Stat. § 3701 provided in pertinent part that "[a]ll stocks, bonds, Treasury notes, and other obligations of the United States, shall be exempt from taxation by or under State or… Held: The Texas tax on bank shares violates Rev.Stat. § 3701 as amended. Pp. 862-867.

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that addressed two critical issues in the administration of the death penalty: the admissibility of psychiatric testimony predicting a defendant's future dangerousness and the procedures for expedited federal appellate review in capital cases.

Petitioner and other men, whose apparent purpose was to indiscriminately kill white persons and to start a racial war, killed a white hitchhiker in Florida. Held: The judgment is affirmed. 411 So.2d 1310 (Fla., 1981) affirmed. Justice REHNQUIST, joined by Chief Justice BURGER, Justice WHITE, and Justice O'CONNOR, concluded: 1 1.

Held: on the basis of its supervisory powers, that jurors should not be instructed that a death sentence could be commuted because it reduced the jury’s sense of responsibility in imposing a capital sentence. Therefore, the Briggs Instruction should not be struck down because it fails to require an instruction of the type condemned in Morse .

Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that extended Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) to allow searches of car compartments during a stop with reasonable suspicion. The case also clarified and narrowed the extent of adequate and independent state ground, allowing U.S. Supreme Court review of state supreme court decisions unless they explicitly appealed to state laws.

Held: to preclude the application of Title VII to an employer -operated plan. See ibid. But Senator Humphrey's explanation provides strong support for Manhart § recognition that Congress intended Title VII to have only that indirect effect on the private insurance industry.

Held: then a waiter/janitor who functions solely as a waiter/janitor should not be convicted either. Because a case involving a conflict among the courts of appeals concerning the standard to be applied in determining criminal liability involves either the unjust conviction of an innocent person or the frustration of congressional intent to criminalize specific conduct, it necessarily presents an important question.