Law Commons^™

12-03-1976 Notes From Oral Argument, Harry A. Blackmun

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Harry A. Blackmun's handwritten notes from oral argument.

12-01-1976 Notes From Oral Argument, Harry A. Blackmun

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Harry A. Blackmun's handwritten notes from oral argument.

11-29-1976 Notes From Oral Argument, Harry A. Blackmun

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Harry A. Blackmun's notes from oral argument.

9-15-1976 Notes From Oral Argument, Harry A. Blackmun

Darden v. Florida, 430 U.S. 704 (1977)

Harry A. Blackmun's handwritten notes from oral argument.

04-13-1976 Memorandum To The Conference, Byron R. White

Carey v. Sugar, 425 U.S. 73 (1976)

This is an appeal from a three-judge court decision sustaining the constitutionality of a Tennessee pre-judgement wage-garnishment statute against a claim that it failed to provide for notice and a hearing prior to the garnishment. The statute permits wage garnishments, as a means of obtaining in rem jurisdiction where efforts to obtain in personam jurisdiction over a defendant fail.

04-02-1976 Memorandum To The Conference, Harry A. Blackmun

Carey v. Sugar, 425 U.S. 73 (1976)

Perhaps some of you know Justice Gunter. In any event, I send you this copy for your information.

04-01-1976 Correspondence To White, Unknown Justice

Carey v. Sugar, 425 U.S. 73 (1976)

Dear Byron:

Bill Gunter seems mildly disgruntled. Shall we take him on?

03-30-1976 Correspondence From Gunter To Blackmun, William B. Gunter

Carey v. Sugar, 425 U.S. 73 (1976)

My dear Mr. Justice:

Having just read the Per Curiam opinion in Carey v. Sugar, 44 LW 4416, I must ssay to you that it is, in my view, one of the grandest cop-outs that has occured since Pilate washed his hands.

03-24-1976 Justice White, Per Curiam, Byron R. White

Carey v. Sugar, 425 U.S. 73 (1976)

This is an appeal from the judgment of a three-judge federal court declarig unconstitutional and enjoing enforcement of certain statutes of the State of New York which provide for prejudgment attachment of defendant's assests.

03-19-1976 Per Curiam, Byron R. White

Carey v. Sugar, 425 U.S. 73 (1976)

This is an appeal from the judgment of a three-judge federal court declaring unconstitutional and enjoining the enforcement of certain statutes of the State of New York which provide for prejudgment attachment of a defedant's assets.

03-18-1976 Correspondence From Burger To White, Warren E. Burger

Carey v. Sugar, 425 U.S. 73 (1976)

Dear Byron:

I join your Per Curiam dated March 3.

03-04-1976 Correspondence From Stewart To White, Potter Stewart

Carey v. Sugar, 425 U.S. 73 (1976)

Dear Byron,

I am glad to join your proposed Per Curiam and see no reason why it should not be a signed opinion.

03-03-1976 Justice White, Per Curiam, Byron R. White

Carey v. Sugar, 425 U.S. 73 (1976)

This is an appeal from the judgement of a three-judge federal court declaring unconstitutional and enjoining the enforcement of certain statutes of the State of New York which provide for prejudgment attachment of a defedant's assets. On April 13, 1973 appellant Curtis Circulation Co. (Curtis) filed a suit against appellees Sugar, Wrestling Revue, Inc. (Wrestling), and Champion Sports Publications, Inc. (Champion), in New York state court. The complaint alleged that Curtis had advanced over $100,000-of which $28,588.08 remained unpaid-to Champion under a contract with Champion pursuant to which Champion had agreed to permit Curtis to market certain identified sports magazines.

01-29-1976 Correspondence From Rehnquist To Burger, William H. Rehnquist

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)

Dear Chief:

I have read over your proposed oral announcement in this case, and it is entirely agreeable to me. I would suggest that, of you agree, it be used only as the format for an oral announcement, and not be duplicated or released to the public in any written form. If it were, I fear that its six pages would soon come to supersede in the minds of lawyers and laymen alike the 130 page opinion that the Court has produced.

01-29-1976 Justice Burger, Oral Summary, Warren E. Burger

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)

I have the per curiam opinion and judgment to announce on behalf of the Court in No. 75-436 and No. 75-437, Buckley v. Valeo. The question before the Court in these cases involves the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act 1971, as amended in 1974.

01-29-1976 Memorandum To The Conference, Warren E. Burger

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)

Enclosed is a "first try" at an oral summary of the above case.

01-27-1976 Notes From Oral Argument, Harry A. Blackmun

Carey v. Sugar, 425 U.S. 73 (1976)

Harry A. Blackmun's handwritten notes from oral argument.

01-22-1976 Correspondence From Rehnquist To Burger, William H. Rehnquist

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)

Dear Chief:

I agree with your draft of the introductory section of this opinion.

01-22-1976 Correspondence From Powell To Burger, Lewis F. Powell

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)

Dear Chief:

I confirm, for your file, my approval of your introductory section.

01-20-1976 Notes From Oral Argument, Harry A. Blackmun

Carey v. Sugar, 425 U.S. 73 (1976)

Harry A. Blackmun's handwritten notes from oral argument.