Volume 415 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 415 of the United States Reports:

Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 (1974), is a US labor law case, concerning arbitration with collective agreements for labor rights.

Upon being notified that she was going to be discharged on a specific date from her position as a probationary Government employee, respondent filed this action… Held: While the District Court is not totally without authority to grant interim injunctive relief to a discharged Government employee, nevertheless under the standards that must govern the issuance of such relief the District Court's issuance of the temporary injunctive relief here cannot be sustained. Pp. 68—92.

Petitioners, foreign-flag shipowners and agents, sought injunctive relief in the Texas state courts to bar, as tortious under Texas… Held: Respondents' activities, which did not involve wages paid within this country but were designed to force the foreign vessels to raise their operating costs to levels comparable to those of American shippers, would have materially affected the foreign ships' 'maritime operations' and precipitated responses by the foreign shipowners in…

On remand from this Court for reconsideration in light of Gooding v. Held: The ordinance, as thus construed, is susceptible of application to protected speech, and therefore is overbroad in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and facially invalid.

On the Government's application for an order authorizing a wiretap interception of the home telephones of respondent Irving Kahn, a suspected bookmaker,… Held: Title III requires the naming of a person in the application or interception order only when the law enforcement authorities have probable cause to believe that that individual is 'committing the offense' for which the wiretap is sought, and since it is undisputed here that the Government had no reason to suspect Mrs.

United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when the police obtained voluntary consent from a third party who possessed common authority over the premises sought to be searched. The ruling of the court established the "co-occupant consent rule," which was later explained by Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) and distinguished later by Georgia v. Randolph (2006), in which the court held that a third party could not consent over the objections of a present co-occupant, and Fernandez v.

The Seventh Amendment of the Constitution entitles either party to demand a jury trial in an action for damages in the federal courts under § 812 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which authorizes private plaintiffs to bring civil actions to redress violations of the Act's fair housing provisions. Pp. 191—198. 467 F.2d 1110, affirmed. Jack Greenberg, New York City, for petitioner. Robert D. Scott, Washington, D.C., for respondents. Mr.

Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (1974), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court affirming the right of Native Americans living on reservations to receive state assistance.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Arizona Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of an Arizona statute requiring a year's residence in a county as a condition… Held: The durational residence requirement, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, creates an 'invidious classification' that impinges on the right of interstate travel by denying newcomers 'basic necessities of life.' Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600. Pp. 253—270.

In this boundary dispute between Arkansas and Mississippi over an area known as Luna Bar in the abandoned bed of the Mississippi River between the upstream and downstream ends of Tarpley Cut-off, where Arkansas' Chicot County and Mississippi's Washington County adjoin, the report of the Special Master is adopted, in which he found that Luna Bar was formed by accretion resulting from the gradual westward movement of the Mississippi River, and is therefore part of the State of…

Petitioner was convicted of grand larceny and burglary following a trial in which the trial court on motion of the prosecution issued a protective order prohibiting questioning Green, a key… Held: Petitioner was denied his right of confrontation of witnesses under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, Pp. 315 321.

At the time respondent company entered into acollective-bargaining agreement with a union, respondent had a blanket rule against distribution by employees of… Held: Respondent's ban might interfere with the employees' rights under § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act 'to form, join, or assist labor organizations,' or to refrain from such activities, and such rights, unlike those in the economic area, cannot be waived by the employees' collective-bargaining representative.

The Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1952 (hereafter the Act), authorizes each federal agency to prescribe by regulation such fee for… Held: The Act authorizes the imposition of a 'fee,' which connotes a 'benefit' of 'value to the recipient.' The latter phrase is the proper measure of the authorized charge, not the 'public policy or interest served' phraseology which, if read literally, would enable the agency to make assessments or tax levies whereby CATV's and other…

The Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1952 (the Act), authorizes each federal agency to prescribe a fee, charge, or price for… Held: While the Act includes services rendered 'to or for any person (including groups . . .),' since the Act is to be construed to cover only 'fees' and not 'taxes,' National Cable Television Ass'n v. United States, 415 U.S. 336, 94 S.Ct. 1146, 39 L.Ed.2d 370, the 'fee' presupposes an application for the agency's services, whether by a…

Johnson v. United States Congress (Docket No. 25-735) is a pending case at the United States Supreme Court. The case concerns whether the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act strips federal district courts of jurisdiction to hear certain constitutional challenges to that law. A decision in favor of the petitioner "could give veterans a new path to challenge the legality of benefits laws, separate from the VA’s administrative appeals system."

Petitioners, who were denied educational benefits under the Veterans' Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966 because, as conscientious… Held: Section 211(a) does not bar judicial consideration of constitutional challenges to veterans' benefits legislation. Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 39 L.Ed.2d 389. P. 393. 467 F.2d 479, vacated and remanded. Lawrence L. Curtice, San Francisco Neighborhood Legal Assistance Foundation, San Francisco, Cal., and Jack R.

Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting, 415 U.S. 394 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that receiving a television broadcast from a "distant" source does not constitute a "performance".

Petitioner employers brought suit in California state court alleging that respondent Union was engaging in a strike in breach of… Held: Whether state law or Rule 65(b) is controlling, the restraining order expired long before the date of the alleged contempt, since under the State Code of Civil Procedure a temporary restraining order is returnable no later than 15 days from its date, 20 days if good cause is shown, and must be dissolved unless the party obtaining it…

Petitioner, who had twice been warned to stop handbilling on an exterior sidewalk of a shopping center against American involvement in Vietnam and… Held: This case presents an 'actual controversy' under Art. III of the Constitution and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, the alleged threats of prosecution in the circumstances alleged not being 'imaginary or speculative' and it being unnecessary for petitioner to expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to make his…

Material Service Corp., a deep-mining coal producer, and its successor, appellee General Dynamics Corp., acquired, through stock… Held: While the Government's statistical showing might have been sufficient to support a finding of 'undue concentration' in the absence of other considerations, the District Court was justified in finding that other pertinent factors affecting the coal industry and appellees' business mandated a conclusion that no substantial lessening of…

Held: first, that “[i]n the absence of diversity of citizenship, it is essential to jurisdiction that a substantial federal question should be presented”; second, that a three-judge court was not necessary to pass upon this initial question of jurisdiction; and third, that “[t]he question may be plainly unsubstantial, either because it is 'obviously without merit’ or because 'its unsoundness so clearly results from the…

Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a Massachusetts flag desecration law that prohibited "publicly treat[ing] contemptuously the flag of the United States" was unconstitutionally void for vagueness.

The Mayor of Philadelphia is empowered by the city charter to appoint a Nominating Panel, which in turn submits to him nominees to fill… Held: The Mayor's principal argument, that federal courts may not interfere with the discretionary appointment powers of an elected executive officer, is of greater importance than was accorded it by the Court of Appeals, but the argument need not be addressed here since the record is devoid of reliable proof of racial discrimination.

Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that the sovereign immunity recognized in the Eleventh Amendment prevented a federal court from ordering a state from paying back funds that had been unconstitutionally withheld from parties to whom they had been due.

Petitioner, an indigent, was denied nomination papers to file as a candidate for the position of County Supervisor in California because,… Held: Absent reasonable alternative means of ballot access, a State may not, consistent with constitutional standards, require from an indigent candidate filing fees that he cannot pay; denying a person the right to file as a candidate solely because of an inability to pay a fixed fee, without providing any alternative means, is not…

Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a California law that prohibited an individual from running for an elected office as an independent candidate if they were registered with a political party within the 12 months prior to the primary election.

American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it is unconstitutional to exclude minority party candidates from absentee ballots that include the major-party candidates.

Respondent Edwards was arrested shortly after 11 p.m. on May 31, 1970, and taken to jail. Held: the search and seizure of Edwards' clothing did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 802—809.

Petitioner, a previously convicted felon, was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), a part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, by falsely stating, in connection with the redemption from a pawnbroker of three guns petitioner had pawned, that he had not been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than a year. The pawnbroker was a federally licensed firearms dealer. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: since “Mitchell had no intention of arresting or detaining '[petitioner] unless he discovered narcotics within his possession.” Thus, this is a simple case, presenting the question of whether a police officer with ample time to secure a warrant may deliberately circumvent this constitutional requirement on the basis of his judgment that the police will be more effective without judicial oversight of his decision to…