List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 378

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 378 of the United States Reports:

  • Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)
  • United States v. Boyd, 378 U.S. 39 (1964)
  • Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n of N. Y. Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964)
  • Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964)
  • Viking Theatre Corp. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 378 U.S. 123 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for Cal. v. Ammex Warehouse Co. of San Ysidro, 378 U.S. 124 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines v. United States, 378 U.S. 125 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Dunne Leases Cars & Trucks, Inc. v. Lussier, 378 U.S. 125 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Benko v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 378 U.S. 126 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Elfbrandt v. Russell, 378 U.S. 127 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Curtis, Inc. v. United States, 378 U.S. 128 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Zoumah v. United States, 378 U.S. 129 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Griffin v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 130 (1964)
  • Fallen v. United States, 378 U.S. 139 (1964)
  • Barr v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 146 (1964)
  • Robinson v. Florida, 378 U.S. 153 (1964)
  • United States v. Penn-Olin Chemical Co., 378 U.S. 158 (1964)
  • Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)
  • Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205 (1964)
  • Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226 (1964)
  • Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964)
  • Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964)
  • United States v. Continental Can Co., 378 U.S. 441 (1964)
  • Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964)
  • Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964)
  • Berman v. United States, 378 U.S. 530 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Dresner v. Tallahassee, 378 U.S. 539 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Aldrich v. Aldrich, 378 U.S. 540 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Drews v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 547 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Williams v. North Carolina, 378 U.S. 548 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Rogers v. United States, 378 U.S. 549 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Green v. Virginia, 378 U.S. 550 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Mitchell v. Charleston, 378 U.S. 551 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Harris v. Virginia, 378 U.S. 552 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Swann v. Adams, 378 U.S. 553 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Meyers v. Thigpen, 378 U.S. 554 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Lucas v. Adams, 378 U.S. 555 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Nolan v. Rhodes, 378 U.S. 556 (1964) (per curiam)
  • West v. Carr, 378 U.S. 557 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Glass v. Hancock County Election Comm'n, 378 U.S. 558 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Williams v. Moss, 378 U.S. 558 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Germano v. Kerner, 378 U.S. 560 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Marshall v. Hare, 378 U.S. 561 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Franklin v. Butterworth, 378 U.S. 562 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Senk v. Pennsylvania, 378 U.S. 562 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Hearne v. Smylie, 378 U.S. 563 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Pinney v. Butterworth, 378 U.S. 564 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Hill v. Davis, 378 U.S. 565 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Lathan v. New York, 378 U.S. 566 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Lopez v. Texas, 378 U.S. 567 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Oister v. Pennsylvania, 378 U.S. 568 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Muschette v. United States, 378 U.S. 569 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Del Hoyo v. New York, 378 U.S. 570 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Pea v. United States, 378 U.S. 571 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Harris v. Texas, 378 U.S. 572 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Catanzaro v. New York, 378 U.S. 573 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Owen v. Arizona, 378 U.S. 574 (1964) (per curiam)
  • McNerlin v. Denno, 378 U.S. 575 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Tralins v. Gerstein, 378 U.S. 576 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Grove Press, Inc. v. Gerstein, 378 U.S. 577 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Fried v. New York, 378 U.S. 578 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Mayer v. Rusk, 378 U.S. 579 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Inland Empire Builders, Inc. v. Washington, 378 U.S. 580 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Bob Jones Univ., Inc. v. Greenville, 378 U.S. 581 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Texas Co. (P. R.) Inc. v. Secretary of Treasury of P. R., 378 U.S. 581 (1964) (per curiam)
  • McLeod v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 582 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Blair v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 582 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Hudson County News Co. v. Sills, 378 U.S. 583 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Smith v. Crouse, 378 U.S. 584 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Ruark v. Colorado, 378 U.S. 585 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Peoples v. United States, 378 U.S. 586 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Fox v. North Carolina, 378 U.S. 587 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Copeland v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 588 (1964) (per curiam)
  • Etchieson v. Texas, 378 U.S. 589 (1964) (per curiam)

External links

Aguilar v. Texas

Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that “[a]lthough an affidavit supporting a search warrant may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information and some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant, whose identity was not disclosed, was credible or his information reliable.” Along with Spinelli v. United States (1969), Aguilar established the Aguilar–Spinelli test, a judicial guideline for evaluating the validity of a search warrant based on information provided by a confidential informant or an anonymous tip. The test developed in this case was subsequently rejected and replaced in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).

Bell v. Maryland

Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226 (1964), provided an opportunity for the Supreme Court of the United States to determine whether racial discrimination in the provision of public accommodations by a privately owned restaurant violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, due to a supervening change in the state law, the Court vacated the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals and remanded the case to allow that court to determine whether the convictions for criminal trespass of twelve African American students should be dismissed.

Bouie v. City of Columbia

Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that due process prohibits retroactive application of any judicial construction of a criminal statute that is unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which has been expressed prior to the conduct in issue. This holding is based on the Fourteenth Amendment prohibition by the Due Process Clause against ex post facto laws.

Cooper v. Pate

Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 (1964), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court ruled for the first time that state prison inmates have the standing to sue in federal court to address their grievances under the Civil Rights Act of 1871. This case followed Jones v. Cunningham (1963) allowing prison inmates to employ a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their sentencing and the conditions of their imprisonment.

Escobedo v. Illinois

Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment. The case was decided a year after the court held in Gideon v. Wainwright that indigent criminal defendants had a right to be provided counsel at trial.

Griffin v. Maryland

Griffin v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 130 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the convictions of five African Americans who were arrested during a protest of a privately owned amusement park by a park employee who was also a deputy sheriff. The Court found that the convictions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Jacobellis v. Ohio

Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court decision handed down in 1964 involving whether the state of Ohio could, consistent with the First Amendment, ban the showing of the Louis Malle film The Lovers (Les Amants), which the state had deemed obscene.

Malloy v. Hogan

Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States deemed defendants' Fifth Amendment privilege not to be compelled to be witnesses against themselves was applicable within state courts as well as federal courts, overruling the decision in Twining v. New Jersey (1908). The majority decision holds that the Fourteenth Amendment allows the federal government to enforce the first eight amendments on state governments.

The test for voluntariness used in the Malloy decision was later abrogated by Arizona v. Fulminante (1991).

Robinson v. Florida

Robinson v. Florida, 378 U.S. 153 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the convictions of several white and African American persons who were refused service at a restaurant based upon a prior Court decision, holding that a Florida regulation requiring a restaurant that employed or served persons of both races to have separate lavatory rooms resulted in the state becoming entangled in racial discriminatory activity in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

United States v. Continental Can Co.

United States v. Continental Can Co., 378 U.S. 441 (1964), was a U.S. Supreme Court case which addressed antitrust issues. One issue it addressed was how should a market segment be defined for purposes of reviewing a merger of companies which manufacture different but related products.

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.