Volume 474 — United States Reports

This is a list of all United States Supreme Court cases from volume 474 of the United States Reports:

Cuyahoga Valley Railway Co. v. Transportation Union, 474 U.S. 3 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Secretary of Labor has unreviewable discretion to withdraw a citation charging an employer with violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

A Pennsylvania state prisoner temporarily confined in the Philadelphia County jail brought suit in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. §… Held: There is no statutory authority for the order in question. Pp. 37-43. (a) Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 567 and 569(b) merely enumerate respondent's obligations to obey a federal court's mandate and to transport prisoners if the court so orders. The court's authority to issue such mandates must derive from some independent source. Pp. 38-39.

Pursuant to a plea-bargaining agreement, petitioner pleaded guilty in an Arkansas court to charges of first-degree murder and theft of property, and the court accepted the… Held: The District Court did not err in declining to hold a hearing on petitioner's claim. Pp. 56-60. (a) Where a defendant enters a guilty plea upon counsel's advice, the voluntariness of the plea depends on whether the advice was within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.

Petitioner recipients of benefits under the federal Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program brought class actions in Federal District Court… Held: Petitioners are not entitled to "notice relief." Since there is no continuing violation of federal law to enjoin, and therefore no valid injunction to which notice could attach, the notice cannot be justified as a mere case-management device that is ancillary to a judgment awarding valid prospective relief. Quern v.

Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that, because of the doctrine of "dual sovereignty" (the concept that the United States and each state possess sovereignty – a consequence of federalism), the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not prohibit one state from prosecuting and punishing somebody for an act of which they had already been convicted of and sentenced for in another state. This decision is one of several that holds that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid the U.S. federal government and a state government, or the governments of more than one state, from prosecuting the same individual separately for the same illegal act.

Petitioner, after a 58-minute interrogation at the New Jersey State Police Barracks, confessed to a murder. Held: The voluntariness of a confession is not an issue of fact entitled to the § 2254(d) presumption but is a legal question meriting independent consideration in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pp. 109-118.

United States v. Riverside Bayview, 474 U.S. 121 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the scope of federal regulatory powers over waterways as pertaining to the definition of "waters of the United States" as written in the Clean Water Act of 1972. The Court ruled unanimously that the government does have the power to control intrastate wetlands as waters of the United States. This ruling was effectively revised in Rapanos v. United States (2006), in which the Court adopted a very narrow interpretation of "navigable waters."

3 concluded that testimony concerning the Battered Wife Syndrome is admissible “to afford the jury an understanding of the defendant’s state of mind at the time she committed the homicide.” App. 9. Held: “The permissive language of 28 U. S. C. §636 suggests that a party’s failure to file objections is not a waiver of appellate review.

Held: "When the police recommended the use of the body wire to Colson they intentionally created a situation that they knew, or should have known, was likely to result in Moulton's making incriminating statements during his meeting with Colson. The police's valid purpose in investigating threats against witnesses does not immunize the recordings of Moulton's incriminating statements from constitutional attack.

Held: for example, that prisoners in confinement are entitled to free access to lawbooks or some other legal assistance. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U. S. 817 (1977). And the great majority of prisoners qualify for in forma pauperis status, which entitles them to relief from statutory *211 filing fees.

Respondent was enrolled in a 6-year program of study at the University of Michigan known as "Inteflex." An undergraduate degree and a medical degree are awarded upon successful completion of the… Held: Even if respondent's assumed property interest gave rise to a substantive right under the Due Process Clause to continue enrollment free from arbitrary state action, the facts of record disclose no such action.

Respondent was indicted by a federal grand jury on February 18, 1983, for felony illegal entry into the United States and reentry by a deported alien, he having been previously convicted for illegal… Held: The Speedy Trial Act, of which § 3161(c)(2) is a part, does not require that the 30-day preparation period be restarted upon the filing of a superseding indictment. Pp. 234-237.

Respondent purchased a car in Switzerland and had it shipped to Vancouver, Canada. Held: On the record, the 36-day delay did not deprive respondent of property without due process of law. Pp. 249-251. (a) Respondent's right to a forfeiture proceeding meeting the Barker test provides the postseizure hearing required by due process to protect respondent's property interest in the car.

Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court case, which held that a defendant's conviction must be reversed if members of their race were systematically excluded from the grand jury that indicted them, even if they were convicted following an otherwise fair trial.

Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284 (1986), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower court's finding and overturned the petitioner's conviction, on the grounds that it was fundamentally unfair for the prosecutor to comment during the court proceedings on the petitioner's silence invoked as a result of a Miranda warning.

Respondents were arrested and indicted in November 1975 on counts of possessing firearms and dynamite. Held: The time during which the indictment was dismissed and respondents were free of all restrictions on their liberty should be excluded from the length of delay considered under the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment. United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 102 S.Ct. 1497, 71 L.Ed.2d 696. Pp. 310-312.

Held: 12 or because the state procedure itself is fundamentally flawed. 13 So too, even though a deprivation may be unauthorized, a procedural due process claim may be raised if it challenges the State’s procedures for preventing or redressing the deprivation.

When threatened by a fellow inmate in the New Jersey State Prison, petitioner sent a note reporting the incident to respondent Assistant Superintendent of the prison, who read the note and sent it to… Held: The protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, whether procedural or substantive, are not triggered by lack of due care by prison officials. Daniels v. Williams , 474 U.S. 327, 106 S.Ct. 662, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986).

Section 2(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 defines "bank" as any institution "which (1) accepts deposits that the depositor has a legal right to withdraw on demand, and (2) engages in the… Held: The Board did not act within its statutory authority in defining "banks" as it did. Pp. 366-375. (a) The Board's definition of "demand deposit" is not an accurate or reasonable interpretation of § 2(c) of the Act.

After respondent and his friend Tucker accepted Dickson's offer of a ride home, a fight developed between Tucker and Dickson, and Dickson stopped the car. Held: The Court of Appeals was correct in concluding that neither the jury's verdict of guilt nor its imposition of the death sentence necessarily reflected a finding that respondent killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill. Pp. 383-384. 2.

In 1978, during a period of natural gas shortage, appellant interstate pipeline entered into long-term contracts with appellee Getty Oil Co. and others to purchase natural gas from a common gas pool… Held: The Board's ratable-take order is pre-empted by the NGA and NGPA. Pp. 417-425. (a) Congress, in enacting the NGPA, did not alter the characteristics of the comprehensive regulatory scheme that provided the basis in Northern Natural for the finding of pre-emption.

United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that misjoinder under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b) is subject to harmless error analysis, and it is not reversible error per se.

Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind, 474 U.S. 481 (1986), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court ruled that the Establishment Clause did not prevent the state of Washington from providing financial vocational assistance to a blind man who sought to study at a Christian college to become a pastor, missionary, or youth pastor. The Court ruled that the Establishment Clause does not prevent financial assistance from a state vocational rehabilitation program from being used for religious instruction.

Quanta Resources Corp. (Quanta) processed waste oil at facilities located in New York and New Jersey. Held: A trustee in bankruptcy may not abandon property in contravention of a state statute or regulation that is reasonably designed to protect the public health or safety from identified hazards. Congress did not intend for § 554(a) to pre-empt all state and local laws.

Petitioners sued respondents in an Alabama state court, alleging that respondent bank had fraudulently induced petitioner individuals to… Held: The Court of Appeals erred by refusing to consider the possible preclusive effect under Alabama law of the state-court judgment. Even if the state court mistakenly rejected respondents' res judicata claim, this would not justify the highly intrusive remedy of a federal-court injunction against enforcement of the state-court judgment.

Held: Milkovich and a fellow witness "apparently had their version of the incident polished and reconstructed, and the judge apparently believed them." Diadiun opined that anyone who had attended the match "knows in his heart that Milkovich . . . lied at the hearing after . . . having given his solemn oath to tell the truth.