Us Supreme Court Court May 1982 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.
Fbi Vs. Abramson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-24-1982
FBI v. Abramson - 456 U.S. 615 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court FBI v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615 (1982) Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Abramson No. 80-1735 Argued January 11, 1982 Decided May 24, 1982 456 U.S. 615 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent journalist filed a request with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for documents relating to the FBI's transmittal to the White House of information concerning individuals who had criticized the Presidential administration. The FBI denied the request under, inter alia, Exemption 7(C) of the FOIA, which exempts from disclosure "investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes" when the release of such records would "constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." After unsuccessful administrative appeals, respondent filed suit in Federal District Court to enjoin the FBI from withholding th...
Hopper Vs. Evans
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-24-1982
Hopper v. Evans - 456 U.S. 605 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Hopper v. Evans, 456 U.S. 605 (1982) Hopper v. Evans No. 80-1714 Argued March 24, 1982 Decided May 24, 1982 456 U.S. 605 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent was convicted in an Alabama state court of the capital offense of an intentional killing during a robbery, and was sentenced to death. At the time of respondent's trial, an Alabama statute precluded jury instructions on lesser included offenses in capital cases. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on automatic appeal. Subsequently, habeas corpus proceedings were brought in Federal District Court seeking to have the conviction set aside on the ground, inter alia, that respondent had been convicted and sentenced under a statute that unconstitutionally precluded consideration of lesser included offenses. The District Court denied relief. Pending an appeal, the Alabama statute precluding lesser included of...
Oregon Vs. Kennedy
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-24-1982
Oregon v. Kennedy - 456 U.S. 667 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982) Oregon v. Kennedy No. 80-1991 Argued March 29, 1982 Decided May 24, 1982 456 U.S. 667 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON Syllabus During respondent's trial for theft in an Oregon state court, the State's expert witness testified as to the value and identity of the property involved. On cross-examination, he acknowledged that he had once filed an unrelated criminal complaint against respondent, but explained that no action had been taken on his complaint. On redirect examination, the court sustained a series of objections to the prosecutor's questions seeking to establish the reasons why the witness had filed a complaint against respondent. After eliciting from the witness that he had never done business with respondent, the prosecutor asked: "Is that, because he is a crook?" The trial court then granted respondent's motion for a mistrial. On retrial, the court rejected...
Woelke and Romero Framing, Inc. Vs. Nlrb
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-24-1982
Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB - 456 U.S. 645 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB, 456 U.S. 645 (1982) Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board No. 80-1798 Argued March 3, 1982 Decided May 24, 1982 * 456 U.S. 645 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act) proscribes secondary agreements between unions and employers -- that is, agreements that require an employer to cease doing business with another party. However, 8(e) contains a proviso which exempts from the proscription of 8(e) agreements between a union and an employer in the construction industry concerning the contracting or subcontracting of work to be performed at a construction jobsite. In No. 80-1798, petitioner Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. (Woelke), and respondent union, in negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement, reached an impasse over the union's de...
Finnegan Vs. Leu
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-17-1982
Finnegan v. Leu - 456 U.S. 431 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. 431 (1982) Finnegan v. Leu No. 80-2150 Argued February 24, 1982 Decided May 17, 1982 456 U.S. 431 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Sections 101(a)(1) and (2) of Title I of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (Act) guarantee equal voting rights and rights of free speech and assembly to "[e]very member of a labor organization," and 609 of Title VI makes it unlawful for a union "to fine, suspend, expel, or otherwise discipline any of its members for exercising any right to which he is entitled" under the Act. Section 102 provides that any person whose rights under Title I have been infringed by any violation thereof may bring an action in federal district court for appropriate relief. Petitioners were discharged from their appointed positions as business agents for respondent local union by respondent union president following...
Department of State Vs. Washington Post Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-17-1982
Department of State v. Washington Post Co. - 456 U.S. 595 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Department of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 (1982) United States Department of State v. Washington Post Co. No. 81-535 Argued March 31, 1982 Decided May 17, 1982 456 U.S. 595 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent filed a request with petitioner United States Department of State under the Freedom of Information Act for documents indicating whether certain Iranian nationals held valid United States passports. The State Department denied the request on the ground that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under Exemption 6 of the Act, which provides that the Act's disclosure requirements do not apply to "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Pending an ultimately unsuccessful administrative appeal, r...
American Soc'y of Mech. Eng'rs Vs. Hydrolevel
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-17-1982
American Soc'y of Mech. Eng'rs v. Hydrolevel - 456 U.S. 556 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court American Soc'y of Mech. Eng'rs v. Hydrolevel, 456 U.S. 556 (1982) American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inc. v Hydrolevel Corp. No. 80-1765. Argued January 13, 1982 Decided May 17, 1982 456 U.S. 556 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner, a nonprofit membership corporation with over 90,000 members drawn from all fields of mechanical engineering, promulgates codes for areas of engineering and industry. Much of its work is done through volunteers from industry and government. The codes, while only advisory, have a powerful economic influence, many of them being incorporated by reference in federal regulations and state and local laws. Respondent marketed a safety device for use in water boilers and secured a customer that previously had purchased the competing product of McDonnell & Miller, Inc. (M&M;). One of M&M;'s officials, a vice-...
Kremer Vs. Chemical Constr. Corp.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-17-1982
Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp. - 456 U.S. 461 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461 (1982) Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. No. 80-6045 Argued December 7, 1981 Decided May 17, 1982 456 U.S. 461 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Title 28 U.S.C. 1738 (as did its predecessors dating back to 1790) requires federal courts to afford the same full faith and credit to state court judgments that would apply in the State's own courts. Petitioner filed an employment discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the EEOC, as required by the Act, referred the charge to the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYHRD), the agency charged with enforcing the New York law prohibiting employment discrimination. The NYHRD rejected the claim as meritless, and was upheld on administrative appeal. The Appellate Division ...
Finley Vs. Murray
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-17-1982
FINLEY v. MURRAY - 456 U.S. 604 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court FINLEY v. MURRAY, 456 U.S. 604 (1982) 456 U.S. 604 FINLEY, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS v. MURRAY CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 80-2205. Argued April 21, 1982 Decided May 17, 1982 Certiorari dismissed. Reported below: 634 F.2d 365 . Scott A. Mayer argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Joan S. Cherry. John S. Elson, by appointment of the Court, 454 U.S. 1096, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent. * [ Footnote * ] Sybille Fritzsche filed a brief for the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law as amicus curiae urging affirmance. PER CURIAM. The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. Page 456 U.S. 604, 605 ...
Greene Vs. Lindsey
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-17-1982
Greene v. Lindsey - 456 U.S. 444 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444 (1982) Greene v. Lindsey No. 81341 Argued February 23, 1982 Decided May 17, 1982 456 U.S. 444 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus A Kentucky statute permits service of process in forcible entry or detainer actions to be made by posting a summons "in a conspicuous place on the premises," if the defendant or a member of the defendant's family over 16 years of age cannot be found on the premises. Service of process under this statute was made on appellee tenants in a public housing project by posting a summons on the door of each of their apartments. Appellees claim that they never saw the summonses and did not know of the eviction proceedings until they were served with writs of possession, executed after default judgments had been entered against them and their opportunity for appeal had lapsed. They then filed a class action in Federal Distric...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »