United States Reports
606 volumes · 104,521 opinions
4,420 opinions in United States Reports with a Wikipedia-sourced synopsis — the cases notable enough that someone wrote an encyclopedia article about them.
- California v. Texas (1978)437 U.S. 601
California v. Texas, 437 U.S. 601 (1978) is a Supreme Court case regarding the jurisdiction of Howard Hughes' estate taxes.
- City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional437 U.S. 617
City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that states could not discriminate against another state's articles of commerce.
- United States v. John (1978)437 U.S. 634
United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that lands designated as a reservation in Mississippi are "Indian country" as defined by statute, although the reservation was established nearly a century after Indian removal and related treaties. The court ruled that, under the Major Crimes Act, the State has no jurisdiction to try a Native American for crimes covered by that act that occurred on reservation land.
- Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft (1978)436 U.S. 1
This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 436 of the United States Reports:
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978)436 U.S. 49
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978), is a landmark case in the area of federal Indian law involving issues of great importance to the meaning of tribal sovereignty in the contemporary United States. The Supreme Court sustained a law passed by the governing body of the Santa Clara Pueblo that explicitly discriminated on the basis of sex. In so doing, the Court advanced a theory of tribal sovereignty that weighed the interests of tribes sufficient to justify a law that, had it been passed by a state legislature or Congress, would have almost certainly been struck down as a violation of equal protection. Along with the watershed cases, United States v. Wheeler and Oliphant v.
- Kulko v. Superior Court of California in and for City and County of San Francisco (1978)436 U.S. 84
Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a parent allowing a child to overstay an agreed parenting plan in another state does not establish minimum contacts for the purpose of personal jurisdiction over that parent.
- Flagg Brothers Inc v. Brooks J Lefkowitz (1978)436 U.S. 149
Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (1978), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States wherein the constitutionality of New York's Uniform Commercial Code provision, which allows a warehouse to enforce a lien upon repossessed goods by selling said goods, was challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that the state-allowed re-sale provision did not constitute state action, and thus, the plaintiff did not possess a colorable federal due process claim.
- Baldwin v. Fish and Game Comm'n of Mont. (1978)436 U.S. 371
Baldwin v. Fish & Game Commission of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case that affirmed the right of the state of Montana to charge higher fees for out-of-state elk hunters.
- In Re Edna Smith Primus (1978)436 U.S. 412
In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that solicitation of prospective litigants by nonprofit organizations that engage in litigation as a form of political expression and political association constitutes expressive and associational conduct entitled to First Amendment protection.
- Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn. (1978)436 U.S. 447
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 US 447 (1978), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that in-person solicitation of clients by lawyers was not protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
- Michigan v. Tyler (1978)436 U.S. 499
Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that firefighters can not enter a burned premises (in this case, a furniture store) to retrieve evidence of arson barring a search warrant, evidence of exigent circumstances, evidence of abandonment, or consent.
- Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978)436 U.S. 547
Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case from 1978 in which The Stanford Daily, a student newspaper at Stanford University, was searched by police who had suspected the paper to be in possession of photographs of a demonstration that took place at the university's hospital in April 1971. The Stanford Daily filed a suit claiming that under the protection of the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, the warrants were unconstitutional and that the searches should have fallen under the context of subpoenas.
- Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York (1978)Altered precedent436 U.S. 658
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), is an opinion given by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court overruled Monroe v. Pape by holding that a local government is a "person" subject to suit under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code: Civil action for deprivation of rights. Additionally, the Court held that §1983 claims against municipal entities must be based on implementation of a policy or custom.
Overruled Monroe v. Pape (1961) - Califano v. Gautier Torres a Califano (1978)435 U.S. 1
This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 435 of the United States Reports:
- Simpson v. United States (1978)435 U.S. 6
Simpson vs. United States, 435 U.S. 6, was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a defendant cannot be sentenced under the punishments of both 18 U.S.C. 2113 (d) and 18 U.S.C. 924 (a) for armed robbery.
- Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978)435 U.S. 191
Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case deciding that Indian tribal courts have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The case was decided on March 6, 1978, with a 6–2 majority. The court opinion was written by William Rehnquist, and a dissenting opinion was written by Thurgood Marshall, who was joined by Chief Justice Warren Burger. Justice William J. Brennan did not participate in the decision.
- Ballew v. Georgia (1978)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional435 U.S. 223
Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978), was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court that held that a Georgia state statute authorizing criminal conviction upon the unanimous vote of a jury of five was unconstitutional. The constitutional minimum size for a jury hearing petty criminal offenses was held to be six.
- United States v. Wheeler (1978)435 U.S. 313
United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the federal prosecution of a Native American (Indian) who has already been prosecuted by the tribe.
- Lakeside v. Oregon (1978)435 U.S. 333
Lakeside vs. Oregon (435 U.S. 333) was a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that trial judges may instruct a jury to not find a defendant guilty in any way based on his refusal to testify against himself, even if the defendant objects to the instruction.
- Stump v. Sparkman (1978)435 U.S. 349
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), is the leading United States Supreme Court decision on judicial immunity. It involved an Indiana judge who was sued by a young woman who had been sterilized without her knowledge as a minor in accordance with the judge's order. The Supreme Court held that the judge was immune from being sued for issuing the order because it was issued as a judicial function. The case has been called one of the most controversial in recent Supreme Court history.
- Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1978)435 U.S. 519
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519 (1978), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a court cannot impose rulemaking procedures on a federal government agency. The federal Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 and an agency's statutory mandate from Congress establish the maximum requirements for an agency's rulemaking (and adjudicative) process. An agency may grant additional procedural rights in the regulatory process (within constitutional and statutory limits). However, a reviewing court cannot "impose upon the agency its own notion of which procedures are 'best' or most likely to further some vague, undefined public good"; to do so would exceed the limits of judicial review of agency action.
- Frank Lyon Co. v. United States (1978)435 U.S. 561
Frank Lyon Company v. United States, 435 U.S. 561 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the title owner that acquired depreciable real estate as if the owner were a mere conduit or agent was indeed the owner and, for Federal income tax purposes, had the legal right to take tax deductions associated with depreciation on the building.
- McDaniel v. Paty (1978)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional435 U.S. 618
McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case in which it held the Tennessee state law prohibiting religious ministers holding elected office violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
- City of Los Angeles Department of Water v. Manhart (1978)435 U.S. 702
City of Los Angeles Department of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702 (1978) is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that employers cannot charge women more for pension benefits, despite women living longer than men, on average, and therefore receiving more retirement benefits.
- Department of Revenue v. Ass'n of Washington Stevedoring Companies (1978)Altered precedent435 U.S. 734
Washington v. Association of Stevedores, 435 U.S. 734 (1978) was a Supreme Court case in which the court held that the State of Washington's business and occupation tax, which may affect interstate commerce, does not violate the Commerce Clause, thus enabling the states to "under appropriate conditions, tax directly the privilege of conducting interstate business." This case directly overruled Puget Sound Stevedoring Co. v State Tax Commission and Joseph v. Carter & Weekes Stevedoring Co.. This case expanded the rights of states to tax interstate commerce activity within their states.
Overruled Joseph v. Carter & Weekes Stevedoring Co. (1947), Puget Sound Stevedoring Co. v. State Tax Commission (1937) - First National Bank of Boston v. X Bellotti (1978)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional435 U.S. 765
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time. The United States Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. The ruling came in response to a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporate donations in ballot initiatives unless the corporation's interests were directly involved. In 1976 several corporations, including the First National Bank of Boston, were barred from contributing to a Massachusetts referendum regarding tax policy and subsequently sued. The case was successfully appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in November 1977.
- Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia (1978)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional435 U.S. 829
Landmark Communications v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case that was argued on January 11, 1978 and decided on May 1, 1978.
- Quilloin v. Walcott (1978)434 U.S. 246
Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court family law case in which the court held that an absentee and unwed father has no substantive due process right to intervene in an adoption of the child.
- Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India (1978)434 U.S. 308
Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India, 434 U.S. 308 (1978), decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that foreign states are entitled to sue for treble damages in U.S. courts, and should be recognized as "persons" under the Clayton Act.
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes (1978)434 U.S. 357
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a prosecutor may threaten a defendant with more serious charges in order to induce a guilty plea and file those new charges if the defendant does not comply.
- Zablocki v. Redhail (1978)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional434 U.S. 374
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that Wisconsin Statutes §§ 245.10 (1), (4), (5) (1973) violated the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Section 245.10 required noncustodial parents who were Wisconsin residents attempting to marry inside or outside of Wisconsin to seek a court order prior to receiving a marriage license. In order to receive such a court order, the noncustodial parent could not be in arrears on his or her child support, and the court had to believe that the child(ren) would not become dependent on the State.
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1978)434 U.S. 412
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 434 U.S. 412 (1978), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that interpreted 42 U.S.C. §1988(b) to generally not require unsuccessful plaintiffs in civil rights cases to pay attorney's fees to the defendant. There would be an exception, however, for plaintiffs that brought frivolous claims. This decision has essentially helped create one way fee shifting for plaintiffs in civil rights cases.
- New Hampshire v. Maine (1977)9–0434 U.S. 1
This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 434 of the United States Reports:
- County Board of Arlington County v. Richards (1977)434 U.S. 5
Arlington County Board v. Richards, 434 U.S. 5 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court decision on the application of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution to municipal parking restrictions. In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court held that a residential zoned parking system requiring permits for daytime parking in the Aurora Highlands neighborhood of Arlington County, Virginia, with those permits limited to residents, their guests and those who came to their homes for business purposes had a rational basis and was thus constitutional. Its decision overturned the Virginia Supreme Court. The ordinance upheld the first such program in a major U.S.
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. J Kowalski (1977)434 U.S. 77
Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77 (1977), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court relating to taxation of meals furnished by an employer. In this case, the Court interpreted Internal Revenue Code §119(a)-(b)(4) and (d) and Treas. Reg. §1.119-1.
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977)434 U.S. 106
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court criminal law decision holding that a police officer ordering a person out of a car during a lawful traffic stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The subsequent observation of a bulge in the person’s jacket was thought to present a danger to the officer, so the officer exercised "reasonable caution" in conducting the pat down, which was also deemed permissible.
- United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977)434 U.S. 159
United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that law enforcement officials may obtain a court order forcing telephone companies to install pen registers in order to record the numbers called from a particular telephone.
- Means v. South Dakota (1977)434 U.S. 898
Thompson v. Washington, 434 U.S. 898 (1977), was a case dismissed by the Supreme Court of the United States for lack of federal question jurisdiction.
- United States v. Chadwick (1977)433 U.S. 1
United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that, absent exigency, the warrantless search of double-locked luggage just placed in the trunk of a parked vehicle is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and not justified under the automobile exception. The Court reasoned that while luggage is movable like an automobile, it does not have the lesser expectation of privacy associated with an automobile.
- Continental Inc v. Gte Sylvania Incorporated (1977)Altered precedent433 U.S. 36
Continental Television v. GTE Sylvania, 433 U.S. 36 (1977), was an antitrust decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It overturned United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U.S. 365 (1967), which held that vertical restraints on the territory a product could be sold in were per se illegal. Here, the Court clarified that such non-price vertical restraints would be analyzed under the "rule of reason," allowing defendants to offer justifications for the restraint.
Overruled United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co. (1967) - Wainwright v. Sykes (1977)Altered precedent433 U.S. 72
Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case decided on June 23, 1977. In a 7–2 decision by Associate Justice William Rehnquist, the Court held that, if a state prisoner fails to raise a federal constitutional claim at trial or on appeal in a manner in keeping with the state's requirements, and cause and prejudice for this failure cannot be shown, that claim cannot be subsequently raised in federal habeas corpus proceedings. The majority adopted the "cause" and "prejudice" requirement that had been laid out in the 1976 Supreme Court decision, Francis v. Henderson, rejecting the broader standard the Court had outlined in the 1963 case Fay v. Noia.
- Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc. (1977)433 U.S. 119
Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, 433 U.S. 119 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case where the court held that prison inmates do not have a right under the First Amendment to join labor unions.
- Shaffer v. Heitner (1977)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional433 U.S. 186
Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977), is a United States corporate law case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established that a defendant's ownership of stock in a corporation incorporated within a state, without more, is insufficient to allow that state's courts to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. The case set forth a framework for evaluating when a defendant will be deemed to have minimum contacts with the forum state sufficient for the exercise of jurisdiction to be consistent with due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Hazelwood School District v. United States (1977)433 U.S. 299
Hazelwood School District v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977), was a court case argued before the United States Supreme Court on April 27, 1977. It concerned employment discrimination and was decided on June 27, 1977.
- Dothard v. Rawlinson (1977)433 U.S. 321
Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977), was the first United States Supreme Court case in which the bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) defense was used.
- Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional433 U.S. 350
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the right of lawyers to advertise their services. In holding that lawyer advertising was commercial speech entitled to protection under the First Amendment (incorporated against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment), the Court upset the tradition against advertising by lawyers, rejecting it as an antiquated rule of etiquette.
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977)433 U.S. 425
Nixon v. General Services Administration, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), is a landmark court case concerning the principle of presidential privilege and whether the public is allowed to view a President's “confidential documents”. The Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1974, ordered that the Administrator of the General Services Administration obtain President Richard Nixon’s presidential papers and tape recordings. In addition, the Act further ordered that government archivists seize these materials. These archivists would preserve the material deemed historic and return to former President Nixon the materials deemed private.
- Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1977)433 U.S. 562
Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977), was an important U.S. Supreme Court case concerning rights of publicity. The Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not immunize the news media from civil liability when they broadcast a performer's entire act without his consent, and the Constitution does not prevent a state from requiring broadcasters to compensate performers. It was the first time (and so far the only time) the Supreme Court heard a case on rights of publicity.
- Coker v. Georgia (1977)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional433 U.S. 584
Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that the death penalty for rape of an adult was grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment, and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
- Nyquist v. Mauclet (1977)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional432 U.S. 1
Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court case where the court ruled on whether state governments have the authority to deny permanent immigrants access to tuition assistance or loans for higher educational institutions. In a five to four decision, the court sided with Mauclet and ruled that such action is considered discriminatory against those with an immigrant status. This case brought forth important questions about whether the denial of education benefits to immigrants could be considered a form of discrimination as well as reaffirmed the federal government's authority over states in cases of immigration law.