Court : US Supreme Court
Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. - 436 U.S. 307 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978) Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. No. 76-1143 Argued January 9, 1978 Decided May 23, 1978 436 U.S. 307 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO Syllabus Appellee brought this action to obtain injunctive relief against a warrantless inspection of its business premises pursuant to 8(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA), which empowers agents of the Secretary of Labor to search the work area of any employment facility within OSHA's jurisdiction for safety hazards and violations of OSHA regulations. A three-judge District Court ruled in appellee's favor, concluding, in reliance on Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523 , 387 U. S. 528 -529, and See v. Seattle, 387 U. S. 541 , 387 U. S. 543 , that the Fourth Amendment required a warrant for the type of search involved and that the statutory authorization fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Baker v. Carr - 369 U.S. 186 (1962) U.S. Supreme Court Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) Baker v. Carr No. 6 Argued April 19-20, 1961 Set for reargument May 1, 1961 Reargued October 9, 1961 Decided March 26, 1962 369 U.S. 186 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE Syllabus Appellants are persons allegedly qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly of Tennessee representing the counties in which they reside. They brought suit in a Federal District Court in Tennessee under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, to redress the alleged deprivation of their federal constitutional rights by legislation classifying voters with respect to representation in the General Assembly. They alleged that, by means of a 1901 statute of Tennessee arbitrarily and capriciously apportioning the seats in the General Assembly among the State's 95 counties, and a failure to reapportion them subsequent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Wyman v. James - 400 U.S. 309 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309 (1971) Wyman v. James No. 69 Argued October 20, 1970 Decided January 12, 1971 400 U.S. 309 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus New York's Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, stressing "close contact" with beneficiaries, requires home visits by caseworkers as a condition for assistance "in order that any treatment or service tending to restore [beneficiaries] to a condition of self-support and to relieve their distress may be rendered and . . . that assistance or care may be given only in such amount and as long as necessary." Visitation with a beneficiary, who is the primary source of information to welfare authorities as to eligibility for assistance, is not permitted outside working hours, and forcible entry and snooping are prohibited. Appellee, a beneficiary under the AFDC program, after receiving several days...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Wolff v. McDonnell - 418 U.S. 539 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) Wolff v. McDonnell No. 73-679 Argued April 22, 1974 Decided June 26, 1974 418 U.S. 539 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent, on behalf of himself and other inmates at a Nebraska prison, filed a complaint for damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983, in which he alleged that disciplinary proceedings at the prison violated due process; that the inmate legal assistance program did not meet constitutional standards; and that the regulations governing inmates' mail were unconstitutionally restrictive. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court granted partial relief. Though rejecting respondent's procedural due process claim, the court held that the prison's policy of inspecting all attorney-prisoner mail was improper, but that restrictions on inmate legal assistance were not constitutionally defective. The Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke - 438 U.S. 265 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) Regents of the University of California v. Bakke No. 7811 Argued October 12, 1977 Decided June 28, 1978 438 U.S. 265 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus The Medical School of the University of California at Davis (hereinafter Davis) had two admissions programs for the entering class of 100 students -- the regular admissions program and the special admissions program. Under the regular procedure, candidates whose overall undergraduate grade point averages fell below 2.5 on a scale of 4.0 were summarily rejected. About one out of six applicants was then given an interview, following which he was rated on a scale of 1 to 100 by each of the committee members (five in 1973 and six in 1974), his rating being based on the interviewers' summaries, his overall grade point average, his science courses grade point average, his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Cannon v. University of Chicago - 441 U.S. 677 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979) Cannon v. University of Chicago No. 77-926. Argued January 9, 1979 Decided May 14, 1979 441 U.S. 677 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Section 901(a) of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) provides in part that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Petitioner instituted litigation in Federal District Court, alleging that she had been excluded from participation in the medical education programs of respondent private universities on the basis of her gender and that these programs were receiving federal financial assistance at the time of her exclusion. The District Court granted respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Parham v. J.R. - 442 U.S. 584 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979) Parham v. J.R. No. 75-1690 Argued December 6, 1977 Reargued October 10, 1978 Decided June 20, 1979 442 U.S. 584 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA Syllabus Appellees, children being treated in a Georgia state mental hospital, instituted in Federal District Court a class action against Georgia mental health officials. Appellees sought a declaratory judgment that Georgia's procedures for voluntary commitment of children under the age of 18 to state mental hospitals violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and requested an injunction against their future enforcement. Under the Georgia statute providing for the voluntary admission of children to state regional hospitals, admission begins with an application for hospitalization signed by a parent or guardian and, upon application, the superintendent of the hospital is autho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Branti v. Finkel - 445 U.S. 507 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980) Branti v. Finkel No. 78-1654 Argued December 4, 1979 Decided March 31, 1980 445 U.S. 507 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondents, both Republicans, brought suit in Federal District Court to enjoin petitioner, a Democrat, who had recently been appointed Public Defender of Rockland County, N.Y. by the Democrat-dominated county legislature, from discharging respondents from their positions as Assistant Public Defenders. Finding that respondents had been satisfactorily performing their jobs and had been selected for termination solely because they were Republicans, and that an assistant public defender is neither a policymaker nor a confidential employee, the District Court held that petitioner could not terminate respondents' employment consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and granted injunctive relief. The Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Fullilove v. Klutznick - 448 U.S. 448 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980) Fullilove v. Klutznick No. 78-1007 Argued November 27, 1979 Decided July 2, 1980 448 U.S. 448 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus The "minority business enterprise" (MBE) provision of the Public Works Employment Act of 1977 (1977 Act) requires that, absent an administrative waiver, at least 10% of federal funds granted for local public works projects must be used by the state or local grantee to procure services or supplies from businesses owned by minority group members, defined as United States citizens "who are Negroes, Spanish-speaking, Orientals, Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts." Under implementing regulations and guidelines, grantees and their private prime contractors are required, to the extent feasible, in fulfilling the 10% MBE requirement, to seek out all available, qualified, bona fide MBE's, to provide technical a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
EPA v. Nat'l Crushed Stone Assn. - 449 U.S. 64 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court EPA v. Nat'l Crushed Stone Assn., 449 U.S. 64 (1980) Environmental Protection Agency v. National Crushed Stone Association No. 79-770 Argued October 7, 1980 Decided December 2, 1980 * 449 U.S. 64 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 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). Section 301(c) of the Act provides for variances from 1987 BAT effluent limitations for individual point sources upon a showing "that such modified requirements (1) will represen...
Tag this Judgment!