Volume 405 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 405 of the United States Reports:

Incumbent Senator Hartke was certified by the Indiana Secretary of State to the Governor as the winner of the close 1970 Indiana… Held: The issue here, whether a recount is a valid exercise of the State's power to prescribe the times, places, and manner of holding elections, pursuant to Art. I, § 4, of the Constitution, or is a forbidden infringement on the Senate's power under Art. I, § 5, is not moot, as the Senate has postponed making a final determination of who…

Parisi v. Davidson, 405 U.S. 34 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case resulting in the grant of habeas corpus relief to a soldier, Joseph Parisi, seeking an honorable discharge as a conscientious objector. The case was argued on October 19 and 20, 1971, and decided on February 23, 1972. The respondent was then Major General Phillip B. Davidson.

Appellants, month-to-month tenants of appellee Normet, refused to pay their monthly rent unless certain substandard conditions were remedied, and appellee threatened eviction. Held: Neither the early-trial provision nor the limitation on litigable issues is invalid on its face under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 64—69.

Respondent taxpayer owned 44% of the stock of a closely held construction corporation, with an original investment of $38,900, and received an annual salary of $12,000 for serving as president on a… Held: In determining whether a bad debt has a 'proximate' relation to the taxpayer's trade or business and thus qualifies as a business bad debt, the proper standard is that of dominant motivation rather than significant motivation. Pp. 103-105. 2.

Employer's discharge of employees because they gave written sworn statements to a National Labor Relations Board field examiner investigating an unfair labor practice charge filed against the employer, but who had neither filed the charge nor testified at a formal hearing on the charge, constituted a violation of § 8(a)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act. Pp. 121—125. 435 F.2d 1296, reversed and remanded. William Terry Bray, Austin, Tex., for petitioner.

Appellees who sought to become candidates for local office in the Texas Democratic primary election challenged in the District Court the validity of the Texas statutory scheme which, without write-in… Held: The Texas primary election filing-fee system contravenes the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 140—149.

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the prosecution's failure to inform the jury that a witness had been promised not to be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony was a failure to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of due process, requiring a new trial. This is the case even if the failure to disclose was a matter of negligence and not intent. The case extended the Court's holding in Brady v. Maryland, requiring such agreements to be disclosed to defense counsel. As a result of this case, the term Giglio material is sometimes used to refer to any information pertaining to deals that witnesses in a criminal case may have entered into with the government.

Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case resulting in a Jacksonville vagrancy ordinance being declared unconstitutionally vague. The case was argued on December 8, 1971, and decided on February 24, 1972. The respondent was the city of Jacksonville, Florida.

Petitioners' convictions for violation of the Florida vagrancy statute for 'wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object' are vacated and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.Ct. 839, 31 L.Ed.2d 110. Pp. 172-173. 239 So.2d 250, vacated and remanded. Mr.

After a corporation (Overmyer) had defaulted in its payments for equipment manufactured and being installed by respondent company… Held: Overmyer, for consideration and with full awareness of the legal consequences, waived its rights to prejudgment notice and hearing, and on the facts of this case, which involved contractual arrangements between two corporations acting with advice of counsel, the procedure under the cognovit clause (which is not unconstitutional per…

Appellants (hereafter plaintiffs), purporting to act on behalf of a class consisting of all Pennsylvania residents who signed documents containing cognovit provisions… Held: The Pennsylvania rules and statutes relating to cognovit provisions are not unconstitutional on their face, as under appropriate circumstances, a cognovit debtor may be held effectively and legally to have waived the rights he would possess if the document he signed had contained no cognovit provision.

Federal Trade Commission v. Sperry & Hutchinson Trading Stamp Co., 405 U.S. 233 (1972), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) may act against a company's “unfair” business practices even though the practice is none of the following: an antitrust violation, an incipient antitrust violation, a violation of the “spirit” of the antitrust laws, or a deceptive practice. This legal theory is termed the "unfairness doctrine."

Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., 405 U.S. 251 (1972), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that Section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act does not authorize a U.S. state to sue for damages for an injury to its general economy allegedly attributable to a violation of the United States antitrust law.

Adams v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 278 (1972) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the right to counsel in preliminary hearings announced by Coleman v. Alabama does not have a retroactive application. The retroactivity of criminal procedure decisions was controversial among members of Court at the time, but the Court announced a more concrete rule in Teague v. Lane.

Respondent taxpayers are cooperative associations within the meaning of the Agricultural Marketing Act, and thus qualify for membership… Held: It is clear from the legislative scheme that the Class C stock is a capital asset having a long-term value. Its cost is, therefore, not deductible as an interest expense. Pp. 302—312. 5th Cir., 431 F.2d 1320, reversed and remanded. Matthew J. Zinn, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. John C. Satterfield, Jackson, Miss., for respondents.

Rabe v. Washington, 405 U.S. 313 (1972), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of obscenity laws and criminal procedure to the states. On 29 August 1968, William Rabe, the manager of a drive-in movie theater in Richland, Washington, was arrested on obscenity charges for showing the film Carmen, Baby. Due to First Amendment concerns, the local court convicted Rabe not on the basis that the film as a whole was obscene, but that exhibiting it in a drive-in theater was. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction holding that the citizens of Washington had no notice under the Sixth Amendment that the place where a film was shown was an element of the offense.

Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court upheld a Free Exercise claim based on the allegations that the state of Texas had discriminated against a Buddhist prisoner by "denying him a reasonable opportunity to pursue his Buddhist faith comparable to that offered other prisoners adhering to conventional religious precepts."

Tennessee closes its registration books 30 days before an election, but requires residence in the State for one year and in the county for three months as prerequisites for registration to vote. Held: The durational residence requirements are violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as they are not necessary to further a compelling state interest. Pp. 335—336.

Following petitioner's classification as a conscientious objector by his local Selective Service Board, the State Director requested an appeal. Held: Section 10(b)(3) forecloses preinduction judicial review where the board has used its discretion and judgment in determining facts and arriving at a classification for the registrant.

Commissioner v. First Security Bank of Utah, N.A., 405 U.S. 394 (1972), was a Supreme Court case holding that a bank prohibited from doing insurance business did not need to include in gross income the insurance commissions on credit life insurance that the bank referred to an unrelated insurance company. The case syllabus says that "no share of premium received by life insurance company on business referred to it by commonly controlled national banks could be attributed to banks, and holding company did not utilize its control over banks and insurance company to distort their true net incomes, although banks encouraged lenders to take out insurance and referred them to insurance company, where federal banking laws would have prohibited banks from receiving share in premiums."

Petitioner was found guilty of murder following a jury trial in which police officers testified as to the detailed confession that he had given to them and in… Held: Any violation of Bruton that might have occurred was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in view of the overwhelming evidence of petitioner's guilt as manifested by his confession, which completely comported with the objective evidence, and the comparatively insignificant effect of the codefendant's admission.

Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples.

For the purpose of impeaching petitioner's credibility, the prosecutor in petitioner's 1947 rape trial was permitted to interrogate him about his previous criminal record. Held: The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. Pp. 480—485. 440 F.2d 934, 937, vacated and remanded. John T. Cabaniss, Houston, Tex., for petitioner. Robert Darden, San Antonio, Tex., for respondent.

Petitioner was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum sentence of one year. Held: Petitioner's claims are substantial enough to warrant an evidentiary hearing. Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107, 86 S.Ct. 760, 15 L.Ed.2d 620; Specht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 605, 87 S.Ct. 1209, 18 L.Ed.2d 326. Pp. 508—514.

Georgia statute providing that '(a)ny person who shall, without provocation, use to or of another, and in his presence . . . opprobrious words or abusive language, tending to cause a breach of the peace . . . shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,' which has not been narrowed by the Georgia courts to apply only to 'fighting' words 'which by their very utterance . . . tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,' Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572, 62 S.Ct. 766,…

Appellee Household Finance Corp. sued appellant Lynch in state court alleging nonpayment of a promissory note, and, prior to serving her with process, garnished her savings account under… Held: There is no distinction between personal liberties and proprietary rights with respect to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3). Pp. 542—552. (a) Neither the language nor the legislative history of that section distinguishes between personal and property rights. Pp. 543—546.

* In this divestiture action under § 7 of the Celler-Kefauver Anti-merger Act, the Government challenged the acquisition by appellant, Ford,… Held: The District Court correctly held that the effect of Ford's acquisition of the Autolite spark plug assets and trade name may be substantially to lessen competition in the spark plug business and thus to violate § 7 of the Celler-Kefauver Antimerger Act; and that the alleged beneficial effects of the merger did not save it from…

The United States brought this injunction action charging a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act by appellee, Topco, a cooperative association of about 25 small and medium-sized independent regional… Held: The Topco scheme of allocating territories to minimize competition at the retail level is a horizontal restraint constituting a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, and the District Court erred in applying a rule of reason to the restrictive practices here involved.

Held: however, that affirmations of good faith in making individual selections are insufficient to dispel a prima facie case of systematic exclusion.

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the fathers of children born out of wedlock had a fundamental right to their children. The US Supreme Court found that, as a matter of due process, unwed fathers ought to be guaranteed the same rights as married or divorced fathers, who have a right to a hearing. The Court also held that Illinois' denial of unwed fathers a hearing, while extending that right to all other parents, violated the equal protection of the laws. Until the ruling, when the mother of a child born out of wedlock was unable to care for the child, through death or other circumstances, the child was made a ward of the state and either placed in an orphanage or foster care or for adoption.

Held: only that the mere refusal to take the particular oath was not a constitutionally permissible basis for termination. In the circumstances of those cases, only by holding a hearing, showing evidence of disloyalty, and allowing the employee an opportunity to respond might the State develop a permissible basis for concluding that the employee was to be discharged.

Respondent, a New York corporation, brought suit for $66,000 on a promissory note against petitioner, a citizen of Texas, in a Texas state court, and petitioner filed a cross-action for… Held: Where after removal a case is tried on the merits without objection and the federal court enters a judgment, the issue on appeal is not whether the case was properly removed, but whether the District Court would have had original jurisdiction if the case had been filed in that court.

respondents challenged a 'use and service charge' of $1 'for each passenger enplaning any commercial aircraft operated from the Dress… Held: The charges imposed in these cases are constitutional. Pp. 711—702. (a) A charge designed to make the user of state-provided facilities pay a reasonable fee for their construction and maintenance may constitutionally be imposed on interstate and intrastate users alike. Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 18 L.Ed. 744, distinguished.

Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), is a Supreme Court of the United States case on the issue of standing under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court rejected a lawsuit by the Sierra Club seeking to block the development of a ski resort at Mineral King valley in the Sierra Nevada Mountains because the club had not alleged any injury.

Held: an action to enjoin the allegedly unconstitutional result reached by the Commission in the exercise of its authority under § 10-121 would not sustain the jurisdiction of a three-judge court.