Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (decided April 7, 1969): First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit criminalizing simple possession of obscene material (8mm films of “nude men and women engaging in intercourse and sodomy”) (police were searching home for evidence of criminal bookmaking) (note: according to the statutory definitions, lesbians could not possibly do anything “obscene” because no penis is being put anywhere)
Wilson v. Snow, 228 U.S. 217 (decided April 7, 1913): upholding old deed where property was properly sold by executrix and “worked” as requested in the Will (which included taking care of the slaves -- this was a really old Will)
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (decided April 7, 2003): This is the case where during oral argument the normally silent Thomas abruptly called cross-burning uniquely designed to cause fear and terrorize a population. Here O’Connor, writing the opinion, holds that Virginia statute criminalizing cross-burning with intent to intimidate does not violate First Amendment, but jury should not have been instructed that the mere fact of cross-burning was prima facie evidence of intimidation. (My only witness to cross-burning, a prank in front of an all-female dorm, had no racial dimension nor was meant to intimidate, and was objected to only by campus Christians.) Thomas dissents.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (decided April 7, 2003): $145 million in punitive damages after only $1 million in compensatory (suit against insurer for bad faith refusal to settle) violated Due Process; Court suggests that normally no more than 10:1 ratio is acceptable (shortly after this case came down I tried a case that went to a punitive damages trial and plaintiff’s attorney was careful to suggest an amount exactly ten times the compensatory award)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (decided April 7, 1986): Delaware Supreme Court vacated murder verdict because trial judge would not allow witness to be cross-examined as to agreement with prosecutor to testify in exchange for dropping drunk driving charge (which would show bias); Court agrees this was a violation of the Confrontation Clause but holds that “harmless error” analysis should have been applied instead of simple vacatur; case remanded (Delaware court held that violation was not harmless error, 524 A.2d 3)
Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U.S. 542 (decided April 7, 1969): violation of Equal Protection to apportion state partly by population and partly by county (this was New York, where 31 districts were apportioned in the thickly populated downstate by population, and the remaining 10 by grouping together upstate counties)
Stroble v. California, 343 U.S. 181 (decided April 7, 1952): confession to murder was admissible when after arrest defendant kept confessing to anyone who would listen, both before and after retaining counsel
Kaufman v. Societe Internationale et al., 343 U.S. 156 (decided April 7, 1952): shareholders in Swiss company which fell under German control in World War II had standing to sue to recover assets which had been seized by the United States under the Trading with the Enemy Act (related litigation went on for years; in 1965 relatives of property expropriated by the Nazis were opposing restitution to the company, https://www.nytimes.com/1965/03/17/archives/two-relatives-of-nazi-victims-fight-payments-to-interhandel.html)
Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 (decided April 7, 1913): White man tried for murder of Native American on Klamath River. Written confession to the murder by another man, deceased, properly excluded as hearsay. The Court cites with approval Queen v. Hepburn, where hearsay proving a slave’s free status was excluded. In dissent, Holmes points out wryly that the confession “would have a very strong tendency to make anyone outside of a court of justice believe that Donnelly did not commit the crime”.
PacifiCare Health Systems v. Book, 538 U.S. 401 (decided April 7, 2003): dismissing RICO suit by physicians seeking reimbursement from HMO; bound by arbitration clause even though it limited damages recoverable
Comments