Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-20-1979
NLRB v. Baptist Hosp., Inc. - 442 U.S. 773 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court NLRB v. Baptist Hosp., Inc., 442 U.S. 773 (1979) National Labor Relations Board v. Baptist Hospital, Inc. No. 78-223 Argued April 23, 1979 Decided June 20, 1979 442 U.S. 773 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR TE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Intervenor labor union filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board with respect to respondent hospital's rule prohibiting solicitation by its employees at all times "in any area of the Hospital which is accessible to or utilized by the public," including the lobbies, gift shop, cafeteria, and entrances on the first floor, as well as corridors, sitting rooms, and public restrooms on the other floors. In justification of the rule, respondent offered extensive evidence, through the testimony of doctors and hospital officials, as to the need for the rule to prevent interference with patients' treatment and convalescence, especiall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-18-1979
United States v. Rutherford - 442 U.S. 544 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Rutherford, 442 U.S. 544 (1979) United States v. Rutherford No. 78-605 Argued April 25, 1979 Decided June 18, 1979 442 U.S. 544 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Terminally ill cancer patients and their spouses brought this action to enjoin the Government from interfering with the interstate shipment and sale of Laetrile, a drug not approved for distribution under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act). Section 505 of the Act prohibits interstate distribution of any "new drug" unless the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare approves an application supported by substantial evidence of the drug's safety and effectiveness. Section 201(p)(1) of the Act defines a "new drug" to include "any drug . . . not generally recognized . . . as safe and effective for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-17-1979
Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS, Inc. - 441 U.S. 1 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS, Inc., 441 U.S. 1 (1979) Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. No. 77-1578 Argued January 15, 1979 Decided April 17, 1979 * 441 U.S. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. (CBS), brought this action against petitioners, American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), and their members and affiliates, alleging, inter alia, that the issuance by ASCAP and BMI to CBS of blanket licenses to copyrighted musical compositions at fees negotiated by them is illegal price-fixing under the antitrust laws. Blanket licenses give the licensees the right to perform any and all of the compositions owned by the members or affiliates as often as the licensees desire for a stated term. Fees for blanket licenses are ordinarily a perce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-20-1979
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe - 442 U.S. 653 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979) Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe No. 78-160 Argued March 21, 1979 Decided June 20, 1979 * 442 U.S. 653 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Pursuant to an 1854 treaty, the reservation of the Omaha Indian Tribe (Tribe) was established in the Territory of Nebraska on the west bank of the Missouri River, with the eastern boundary being fixed as the center of the river's main channel. In 1867, a General Land Office survey established that certain land was included in the reservation, but since then, the river has changed course several times, leaving most of the survey area on the Iowa side of the river, separated from the rest of the reservation. Residents of Iowa ultimately settled on and improved this land, and these non-Indian owners and their successors in title occupied the land for many years prior to April 2, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-27-1979
Leo Sheep Co. v. United States - 440 U.S. 668 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, 440 U.S. 668 (1979) Leo Sheep Co. v. United States No. 77-1686 Argued January 15, 16, 1979 Decided March 27, 1979 440 U.S. 668 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STAETS COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Union Pacific Act of 1862 granted public land to the Union Pacific Railroad for each mile of track that it laid, and this was done under a system whereby land surrounding the railroad right-of-way was divided into "checkerboard" blocks, with odd-numbered lots being granted to the railroad and even-numbered lots being reserved for the Government. Petitioners, the railroad's successors in fee to certain odd-numbered lots in Wyoming lying in the vicinity of a reservoir area used by the public for fishing and hunting, brought an action to quiet title against the United States after the Govrnment had cleared a road across the Leo Sheep Co.'s land to afford the public ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-21-1979
New York City Transit Auth. v. Beazer - 440 U.S. 568 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court New York City Transit Auth. v. Beazer, 440 U.S. 568 (1979) New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer No. 77-1427 Argued December 6, 1978 Decided March 21, 1979 440 U.S. 568 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner, New York City Transit Authority (TA), which, in operating the subway system and certain bus lines in New York City, employs about 47,000 persons, of whom many are employed in positions that involve danger to themselves or to the public, enforces a general policy against employing persons who use narcotic drugs. TA interprets its drug regulation to encompass current users of methadone, including those receiving methadone maintenance treatment for curing heroin addiction. Respondents, two former employees of TA who were dismissed while they were receiving methadone treatment, and two persons who were refused employment because they were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-20-1979
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
Decided on : Feb-21-1979
Friedman et al. v. Rogers et al. - 440 U.S. 1 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Friedman et al. v. Rogers et al., 440 U.S. 1 (1979) Friedman et al. v. Rogers et al. No. 77-1163 Argued November 8, 1978 Decided February 21, 1979 * 440 U.S. 1 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus Section 5.13(d) of the Texas Optometry Act prohibits the practice of optometry under a trade name, and 2.02 requires that four of the six members of the Texas Optometry Board, which regulates the practice of optometry in the State, be members of the Texas Optometric Association (TOA), a professional organization of optometrists. Rogers, a Board member but ineligible for membership in TOA because of noncompliance with the code of ethics required for membership, brought an action challenging the constitutionality of these provisions. A three-judge District Court held that 2.02 is related reasonably to the State's purpose of ensuring enforcement of the Act and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-11-1979
Southeastern Commun. Coll. v. Davis - 442 U.S. 397 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Southeastern Commun. Coll. v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (1979) Southeastern Community College v. Davis No. 78-711 Argued April 23, 1979 Decided June 11, 1979 442 U.S. 397 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent, who suffers from a serious hearing disability and who seeks to be trained as a registered nurse, was denied admission to the nursing program of petitioner Southeastern Community College, a state institution that receives federal funds. An audiologist's report indicated that, even with a hearing aid, respondent cannot understand speech directed to her except through lip-reading, and petitioner rejected respondent's application for admission because it believed her hearing disability made it impossible for her to participate safely in the normal clinical training program or to care safely for patients. Respondent then filed suit against petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-30-1979
Addington v. Texas - 441 U.S. 418 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) Addington v. Texas No. 77-5992 Argued November 28, 1978 Decided April 30, 1979 441 U.S. 418 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Syllabus Appellant's mother filed a petition for his indefinite commitment to a state mental hospital in accordance with Texas law governing involuntary commitments. Appellant had a long history of confinements for mental and emotional disorders. The state trial court instructed the jury to determine whether, based on "clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence," appellant was mentally ill and required hospitalization for his own welfare and protection or the protection of others. Appellant contended that the trial court should have employed the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof. The jury found that appellant was mentally ill and that he required hospitalization, and the trial court ordered his commitment for an indefinite period. The T...
Tag this Judgment!