Us Supreme Court Court March 1978 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
City of Lafayette Vs. Louisiana Pandl; Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-29-1978
City of Lafayette v. Louisiana P&L; Co. - 435 U.S. 389 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court City of Lafayette v. Louisiana P&L; Co., 435 U.S. 389 (1978) City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. No. 76-864 Argued October 4, 1977 Decided March 29, 1978 435 U.S. 389 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner cities, which own and operate electric utility systems both within and beyond their respective city limits as authorized by Louisiana law, brought an action in District Court against respondent investor-owned electric utility with which petitioners compete, alleging that it committed various federal antitrust offenses that injured petitioners in the operation of their electric utility systems. Respondent counterclaimed, alleging that petitioners had committed various antitrust offenses that injured respondent in its business and property. Petitioners moved to dismiss the counterclaim on the ground that, as cities and subdivision...
Bracy Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-29-1978
Bracy v. United States - 435 U.S. 1301 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Bracy v. United States, 435 U.S. 1301 (1978) Bracy v. United States No. A-798 (77-1360) Decided March 29, 1978 435 U.S. 1301 ON APPLICATION FOR STAY Syllabus Application for stay of Court of Appeals' judgment affirming applicants' narcotics convictions and denying rehearing, pending a petition for certiorari wherein it is claimed that the indictment should be dismissed because a witness committed perjury before the grand jury, is denied where it does not appear that four Justices would vote to grant certiorari. An indictment is not invalidated by the introduction of inadmissible evidence before the grand jury, which sits not to determine the truth of the charges, but only to determine whether there is probable cause to believe them true so as to require the defendant to stand trial. MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, Circuit Justice. Applicants were convicted of several related narcotics offenses in the United States Dist...
United States Vs. Culbert
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-28-1978
United States v. Culbert - 435 U.S. 371 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Culbert, 435 U.S. 371 (1978) United States v. Culbert No. 77-142 Argued January 11, 1978 Decided March 28, 1978 435 U.S. 371 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent was convicted under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951 (1976 ed.), of attempting to obtain money from federally insured bank by means of threats of violence to its president. The Curt of Appeals reversed, holding that the Government had failed to prove that respondent's conduct constituted "racketeering," which, in its view, was a necessary element of a Hobbs Act offense. Held: The plain language and legislative history of the statute make clear that Congress did not intend to limit the statute's scope by reference to an undefined category of conduct termed "racketeering," but rather that Congress intended to reach all conduct within the express terms of the statute. Pp. 435 U. S. ...
Stump Vs. Sparkman
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-28-1978
Stump v. Sparkman - 435 U.S. 349 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) Stump v. Sparkman No. 76-1750 Argued January 10, 1978 Decided March 28, 1978 435 U.S. 349 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus A mother filed a petition in affidavit form in an Indiana Circuit Court, a court of general jurisdiction under an Indiana statute, for authority to have her "somewhat retarded" 15-year-old daughter (a respondent here) sterilized, and petitioner Circuit Judge approved the petition the same day in an ex parte proceeding without a hearing and without notice to the daughter or appointment of a guardian ad litem. The operation was performed shortly thereafter, the daughter having been told that she was to have her appendix removed. About two years later, she was married, and her inability to become pregnant led her to discover that she had been sterilized. As a result, she and her husband (also a respondent he...
Bankers Trust Co. Vs. Mallis
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-28-1978
Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis - 435 U.S. 381 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381 (1978) Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis No. 76-1359 Argued November 30, 1977 Decided March 28, 1978 435 U.S. 381 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus In dismissing respondents' action against petitioner under 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the District Court failed to set forth the judgment in a separate document as required by Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 58. Despite the absence of a separate judgment, but without objection by petitioner, the Court of Appeals assumed appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291, giving courts of appeals jurisdiction of appeals from all "final decisions" of the district courts, and reversed on the merits. Held: 1. Under the circumstances, the parties should be deemed to have waived Rule 58's separate judgment requirement, and hence the Court of Appeals properly assumed appellate jurisd...
Lakeside Vs. Oregon
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-22-1978
Lakeside v. Oregon - 435 U.S. 333 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333 (1978) Lakeside v. Oregon No. 76-6942 Argued January 18, 1978 Decided March 22, 1978 435 U.S. 333 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON Syllabus 1. The giving by a state trial judge, over a criminal defendant's objection, of a cautionary instruction that the jury is not to draw any adverse inference from the defendant's decision not to testify in his behalf does not violate the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 435 U. S. 336 -341. (a) Though in Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609 , the Court stated that "comment on the refusal to testify" violates the constitutional privilege, the Court was there concerned only with adverse comment, whereas here the very purpose of the instruction is to remove from the jury's deliberations any influence of unspoken adverse inferences. Pp. 435 U. S. 338 -339. (b) Petiti...
Foley Vs. Connelie
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-22-1978
Foley v. Connelie - 435 U.S. 291 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. 291 (1978) Foley v. Connelie No. 76-839 Argued November 8, 1977 Decided March 22, 1978 435 U.S. 291 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus New York statute limiting appointment of members of state police force to citizens of the United States held not to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 435 U. S. 294 -300. (a) Citizenship may be a relevant qualification for fulfilling those "important nonelective . . . positions" held by "officers who participate directly in the formulation, execution, or review of broad public policy," Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U. S. 634 , 413 U. S. 647 . Strict equal protection scrutiny is not required to justify classifications applicable to such positions; a State need only show some rational relationship between the interest sought to be protected and the limiting classifi...
United States Vs. Wheeler
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-22-1978
United States v. Wheeler - 435 U.S. 313 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978) United States v. Wheeler No. 76-1629 Argued January 11, 1978 Decided March 22, 1978 435 U.S. 313 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent, a member of the Navajo Tribe, pleaded guilty in Tribal Court to a charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and was sentenced. Subsequently, he was indicted by a federal grand jury for statutory rape arising out of the same incident. He moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that, since the tribal offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor was a lesser included offense of statutory rape, the Tribal Court proceeding barred the subsequent federal prosecution. The District Court granted the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, since tribal courts and federal district courts are not "arms of separate sovereigns," the Double Jeopardy C...
Ballew Vs. Georgia
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-21-1978
Ballew v. Georgia - 435 U.S. 223 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978) Ballew v. Georgia No. 76-761 Argued November 1, 1977 Decided March 21, 1978 435 U.S. 223 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA Syllabus Petitioner, who was charged with committing a misdemeanor, was tried before a five-person jury pursuant to Georgia law, and convicted. Though a criminal trial by a six-person jury is permissible under Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S. 78 , petitioner maintains that a trial before a jury of less than six is unconstitutional, a contention that the Georgia courts rejected. Held: The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded. Pp. 435 U. S. 229 -245; 435 U. S. 245 ; 435 U. S. 245 -246. 138 Ga.App. 530, 227 S.E.2d 65, reversed and remanded. MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, joined by MR. JUSTICE STEVENS, concluded that a criminal trial to a jury of less than six persons substantially threatens Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees. Georg...
United States Vs. Ceccolini
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-21-1978
United States v. Ceccolini - 435 U.S. 268 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978) United States v. Ceccolini No. 76-1151 Argued December 5, 1977 Decided March 21, 1978 435 U.S. 268 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus A police officer (Biro), while taking a break in respondent's flower shop and conversing with an employee of the shop (Hennessey), noticed an envelope with money protruding therefrom lying on the cash register. Upon examination, he found it contained not only money, but policy slips. Biro then placed the envelope back on the register and, without telling Hennessey what he had found, asked her to whom the envelope belonged. She told him it belonged to respondent. Biro's finding was reported to local detectives and to the FBI, who interviewed Hennessey some four months later without referring to the incident involving Biro. About six months after that incident, respondent was summoned ...