Us Supreme Court Court July 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.
Fare Vs. Michael C.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-28-1978
Fare v. Michael C. - 439 U.S. 1310 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Fare v. Michael C., 439 U.S. 1310 (1978) Fare v. Michael C. No. A-33 Decided July 28, 1978 439 U.S. 1310 ON APPLICATION FOR STAY Syllabus Application to stay, pending the filing of a petition for certiorari, California Supreme Court's judgment ordering a rehearing in the trial court for respondent juvenile on the ground that a confession obtained after respondent had requested his probation officer's presence and relied on by the trial court in finding respondent guilty of murder was inadmissible under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 , is granted. The order in question was predicated on federal, not state, grounds; the balance of equities favors applicant; and it is likely that four Justices of this Court will vote to grant certiorari. See: 21 Cal.3d 471, 579 P.2d 7. MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, Circuit Justice. Applicant requests a stay of enforcement of a judgment of the California Supreme Court ordering a rehe...
Reproductive Svcs., Inc. Vs. Walker
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-17-1978
Reproductive Svcs., Inc. v. Walker - 439 U.S. 1307 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Reproductive Svcs., Inc. v. Walker, 439 U.S. 1307 (1978) Reproductive Services, Inc. v. Walker No. A-1091 Decided July 17, 1978 439 U.S. 1307 ON APPLICATION FOR STAY Syllabus Application to stay Texas Supreme Court's order denying applicant medical clinic operator's motion for a writ of mandamus directed to respondent trial judge to overturn his order that applicant produce certain medical records in a medical malpractice suit against it is denied on the condition that the parties agree to a protective order ensuring the privacy of patients at applicant's clinics. It does not appear at this time that there is any irreparable injury to any patient's privacy interests justifying a stay. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN. I have before me an application [ Footnote 1 ] to stay an order of the Supreme Court of Texas, which denied applicant's motion for a writ of mandamus directed to respondent. The questions at iss...
New York Times Co. Vs. Jascalevich
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-12-1978
New York Times Co. v. Jascalevich - 439 U.S. 1304 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court New York Times Co. v. Jascalevich, 439 U.S. 1304 (1978) New York Times Co. v. Jascalevich No. A-38 Decided July 12, 1978 439 U.S. 1304 ON REAPPLICATION FOR STAY Syllabus Reapplication for stay of New Jersey Supreme Court's order, following denial of initial application, see ante p. 439 U. S. 1301 , is denied. At this premature stage of the state court proceedings, applicants have failed to meet the burden for issuance of such a stay -- a showing that there is "a balance of hardships in their favor" and that four Justices of this Court likely would vote to grant certiorari. MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL. The New York Times and one of its journalists have applied to me for a stay of an order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, issued July 6, 1978, pending the filing and disposition of applicants' petition for certiorari. MR JUSTICE WHITE yesterday denied the application, and the pertinent facts are stated ...
New York Times Co. Vs. Jascalevich
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-11-1978
New York Times Co. v. Jascalevich - 439 U.S. 1301 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court New York Times Co. v. Jascalevich, 439 U.S. 1301 (1978) New York Times Co. v. Jascalevich No. A-38 Decided July 11, 1978 439 U.S. 1301 ON APPLICATION FOR STAY MR. JUSTICE WHITE. Since MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN has disqualified himself in this matter, I have before me an application for stay of an order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey of July 6, 1978, which refused to stay and denied leave to appeal from an order of a state trial court refusing to quash a subpoena issued in the course of an ongoing criminal trial for murder. The order of the trial court, issued June 30, ordered the New York Times Co. and Myron Farber, a reporter for the New York Times, to produce certain documents covered by a subpoena served upon them in New York pursuant to the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in Criminal Proceedings, N.J.Stat.Ann. 2A:81-18 to 2A: 81-23 (West 1976). The subpoena wa...
Bell Vs. Ohio
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-03-1978
Bell v. Ohio - 438 U.S. 637 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Bell v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 637 (1978) Bell v. Ohio No. 76-6513 Argued January 17, 1978 Decided July 3, 1978 438 U.S. 637 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Syllabus Petitioner, whose conviction of aggravated murder with a specification that it occurred during a kidnaping and death sentence were affirmed by the Ohio Supreme Court, contends that the Ohio death penalty statute ( see Lockett v. Ohio, ante, p. 438 U. S. 586 ) violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because it prevented the sentencing judge from considering the particular circumstances of his crime and aspects of his character and record as mitigating factors. Held: The judgment is reversed insofar as it upholds the death penalty, and the case is remanded. Pp. 438 U. S. 642 -643; 438 U. S. 624 -628; 438 U. S. 643 ; 438 U. S. 643 -644. 48 Ohio St. 2d 270, 358 N. E. 2d 556, reversed in part and remanded. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE B...
Fcc Vs. Pacifica Foundation
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-03-1978
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation - 438 U.S. 726 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation No. 77-528 Argued April 18, 19, 1978 Decided July 3, 1978 438 U.S. 726 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus A radio station of respondent Pacifica Foundation (hereinafter respondent) made an afternoon broadcast of a satiric monologue, entitled "Filthy Words," which listed and repeated a variety of colloquial uses of "words you couldn't say on the public airwaves." A father who heard the broadcast while driving with his young son complained to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which, after forwarding the complaint for comment to and receiving a response from respondent, issued a declaratory order granting the complaint. While not imposing formal sanctions, the FCC stated that the order would be "associated with the station's license fil...
Lockett Vs. Ohio
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-03-1978
Lockett v. Ohio - 438 U.S. 586 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) Lockett v. Ohio No. 76-6997 Argued January 17, 1978 Decided July 3, 1978 438 U.S. 586 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Syllabus The Ohio death penalty statute provides that once a defendant is found guilty of aggravated murder with at least one of seven specified aggravating circumstances, the death penalty must be imposed unless, considering "the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history, character, and condition of the offender," the sentencing judge determines that at least one of the following circumstances is established by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the victim induced or facilitated the offense; (2) it is unlikely that the offense would have been committed but for the fact that the offender was under duress, coercion, or strong provocation; or (3) the offense was primarily the product of the offender's psychosis or mental deficiency. Petitioner, ...
United States Vs. New Mexico
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-03-1978
United States v. New Mexico - 438 U.S. 696 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696 (1978) United States v. New Mexico No. 77-510 Argued April 24, 25, 1978 Decided July 3, 1978 438 U.S. 696 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO Syllabus The United States, in setting aside the Gila National Forest from other public lands, held to have reserved the use of water out of the Rio Mimbres only where necessary to preserve the timber in the forest or to secure favorable water flows, and hence not to have a reserved right for aesthetic, recreational, wildlife preservation, and stockwatering purposes. That this was Congress' intent is revealed in the limited purposes for which the national forest system was created and in Congress' deference to state water law in the Organic Administration Act of 1897 and other legislation. While the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 was intended to broaden the purposes for which national forests had previously...
California Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-03-1978
California v. United States - 438 U.S. 645 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645 (1978) California v. United States No. 77-285 Argued March 28, 1978 Decided July 3, 1978 438 U.S. 645 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The United States Bureau of Reclamation applied to the California State Water Resources Control Board for a permit to appropriate water that would be impounded by the New Melones Dam, a unit of the California Central Valley Project. Congress specifically directed that the Dam be constructed and operated pursuant to the Reclamation Act of 1902, which established a program for federal construction and operation of reclamation projects to irrigate arid western land. Section 8 of that Act provides that "nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting or intended to affect or to in any way interfere with the laws of any State or Territory relating to the control, appropriation, use, or ...
Alabama Vs. Pugh
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-03-1978
Alabama v. Pugh - 438 U.S. 781 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978) Alabama v. Pugh No. 77-1107 Decided July 3, 1978 438 U.S. 781 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus In respondent present and former prison inmates' suit against petitioners (the State of Alabama, the Alabama Board of Corrections, and several prison officials), the District Court issued an injunction prescribing measures to eradicate cruel and unusual punishment in the Alabama prison system. The Court of Appeals affirmed with some modifications. Held: The District Court's injunction, insofar as it was issued against the State and the Board of Corrections, violates the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity absent the State's consent to suit. Certiorari granted; 559 F.2d 283, reversed in part and remanded. PER CURIAM. Respondents, inmates or former inmates of the Alabama prison system, sued petitioners, who include the State of Alabama and ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›