Us Supreme Court Court February 1981 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.
Steadman Vs. Sec
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-25-1981
Steadman v. SEC - 450 U.S. 91 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91 (1981) Steadman v. Securities and Exchange Commission No. 79-1266 Argued December 3, 1980 Decided February 25, 1981 450 U.S. 91 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus After an on-the-record hearing before an Administrative Law Judge and review by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in which the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof was employed, the SEC held that petitioner had violated various antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, and sanctions were imposed. Petitioner sought review in the Court of Appeals on the alleged ground, inter alia, that the SEC's use of the preponderance of the evidence, rather than the clear and convincing, standard of proof in determining whether he had violated the securities laws, was improper. The Court of Appeals rejected the argument. Held: 1. In adjudicatory proceedings before t...
Carson Vs. American Brands, Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-25-1981
Carson v. American Brands, Inc. - 450 U.S. 79 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (1981) Carson v. American Brands, Inc. No. 79-1236 Argued December 10, 1980 Decided February 25, 1981 450 U.S. 79 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioners, representing a class of present and former black employees and job applicants, sought injunctive and declaratory relief and damages in an action under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that respondent employer and unions had engaged in racially discriminatory employment practices. The parties negotiated a settlement and jointly moved the District Court to enter a proposed consent decree which would permanently enjoin respondents from discriminating against black employees and would require them to give hiring and seniority preferences to black employees and to fill one-third of certain supervisory positions with quali...
Democratic Party Vs. WisconsIn Ex Rel. La Follette
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-25-1981
Democratic Party v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette - 450 U.S. 107 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Democratic Party v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107 (1981) Democratic Party v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette No. 79-1631 Argued December 8, 1980 Decided February 25, 1981 450 U.S. 107 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN Syllabus Rules of the Democratic Party of the United States (National Party) provide that only those who are willing to affiliate publicly with the Democratic Party may participate in the process of selecting delegates to the Party's National Convention. Wisconsin election laws allow voters to participate in its Democratic Presidential candidate preference primary without regard to party affiliation and without requiring a public declaration of party preference. While the Wisconsin delegates to the National Convention are chosen separately, after the primary, at caucuses of persons who have stated their affiliation with the Democratic Party, those del...
Hudson Vs. Louisiana
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-24-1981
Hudson v. Louisiana - 450 U.S. 40 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40 (1981) Hudson v. Louisiana No. 75688 Argued December 1, 1980 Decided February 24, 1981 450 U.S. 40 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus Held: Louisiana violated the Double Jeopardy Clause by prosecuting petitioner a second time for first-degree murder after the judge at the first trial granted petitioner's motion for new trial on the ground that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict. This case is controlled by Burks v. United States, 437 U. S. 1 (decided before the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed petitioner's conviction after the second trial), which held that "the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes a second trial once the reviewing court has found the evidence legally insufficient" to support the guilty verdict. Id. at 437 U. S. 18 . Burks is not to be read as holding that double jeopardy protections are violated only wh...
Weaver Vs. Graham
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-24-1981
Weaver v. Graham - 450 U.S. 24 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (1981) Weaver v. Graham No. 79-5780 Argued November 5, 1980 Decided February 24, 1981 450 U.S. 24 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Syllabus Held: A Florida statute repealing an earlier statute and reducing the amount of "gain time" for good conduct and obedience to prison rules deducted from a convicted prisoner's sentence is unconstitutional as an ex post facto law as applied to petitioner, whose crime was committed before the statute's enactment. Pp. 450 U. S. 28 -36. (a) For a criminal or penal law to be ex post facto, it must be retrospective, that is, it must apply to events occurring before its enactment, and it must disadvantage the offender affected by it. Lindsey v. Washington, 301 U. S. 397 , 301 U. S. 401 ; Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 3 U. S. 390 . It need not impair a "vested right." Even if a statute merely alters penal provisions accorded by the gr...
Board of Governors, Frs Vs. Investment Co. Inst.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-24-1981
Board of Governors, FRS v. Investment Co. Inst. - 450 U.S. 46 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Board of Governors, FRS v. Investment Co. Inst., 450 U.S. 46 (1981) Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. Investment Company Institute No. 79-927 Argued October 15, 1980 Decided February 24, 1981 450 U.S. 46 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus Section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding Company Act authorizes the Federal Reserve Board (Board) to allow bank holding companies to acquire or retain ownership in companies whose activities are "so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto." In 1972, the Board amended its Regulation Y, and issued an interpretive ruling in connection therewith, enlarging the category of activities that it would regard as "closely related to banking" under 4(c)(8) by permitting bank holding companies and their nonbanking subsidiaries to act as a...
Hcsc-laundry Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1981
HCSC-Laundry v. United States - 450 U.S. 1 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court HCSC-Laundry v. United States, 450 U.S. 1 (1981) HCSC-Laundry v. United States No. 80-338 Decided February 23, 1981 450 U.S. 1 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus Held: A cooperative hospital service organization cannot qualify for exemption from federal income taxation as a charitable organization under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, but instead may qualify only if it performs one of the services listed in 501(e)(1)(A). This conclusion is supported both by the principle of statutory construction that a specific statute, here subsection (e), controls over a general provision such as subsection (c)(3), particularly when the two are interrelated and closely positioned, and by the legislative history. Since laundry service was deliberately omitted from the list of services in subsection (e), petitioner, a nonprofit corporat...
California Vs. Riegler
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-05-1981
California v. Riegler - 449 U.S. 1319 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court California v. Riegler, 449 U.S. 1319 (1981) California v. Riegler No. A-659 Decided February 5, 1981 449 U.S. 1319 ON APPLICATION FOR STAY Syllabus An application to stay, pending the filing of a petition for certiorari, the California Court of Appeal's judgment reversing respondent's state drug conviction on the ground that the Fourth Amendment was violated, is granted. After a lawful customs search revealed hashish in packages mailed from Germany, law enforcement officials arranged for a controlled delivery of the packages; obtained a warrant to search the place of delivery and seize the packages; delayed executing the warrant and followed respondent and others when they left the delivery place by automobile with the packages; and, after arresting the suspects, reopened the packages at the police station without obtaining a second search warrant. The stay is warranted because the state court's decision was base...
Atiyeh Vs. Capps
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-04-1981
Atiyeh v. Capps - 449 U.S. 1312 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Atiyeh v. Capps, 449 U.S. 1312 (1981) Atiyeh v. Capps No. A-625 Decided February 4, 1981 449 U.S. 1312 ON APPLICATION FOR STAY Syllabus An application to stay the District Court's injunction, which requires Oregon officials to eliminate "overcrowding" in a certain prison by reducing the number of prisoners housed there by specified amounts by specified dates, is granted pending either the Court of Appeals' decision in the appeal in this case or this Court's decision in Rhodes v. Chapman, No. 89-332, scheduled for argument this Term and involving similar issues (whichever may come first). It appears that the District Court, in determining the appropriate standards under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to be applied in considering conditions of imprisonment, misconstrued pertinent decisions of this Court. Moreover, the District Court's order fails to comply with the specificity requirement of Federal Rule of Civil...
Mccarthy Vs. Harper
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-03-1981
McCarthy v. Harper - 449 U.S. 1309 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court McCarthy v. Harper, 449 U.S. 1309 (1981) McCarthy v. Harper No. A-631 Decided February 3, 1981 449 U.S. 1309 ON APPLICATION FOR STAY Syllabus An application for a stay, pending applicant's petition for certiorari, of the mandate of the Court of Appeals -- which had reversed the District Court's judgment dismissing respondent state prisoner's habeas corpus petition -- is granted. Title 28 U.S.C. 2253 provides that an appeal may not be taken to a court of appeals from a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding based on detention arising from state court process unless the judge who rendered the order or a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of probable cause. There is no indication that such a certificate was issued here, and at least four other Members of this Court would probably share the view that, accordingly, the Court of Appeals was prohibited by statute from entertaining respondent's appeal from th...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›