BOTTOS

v.

PIVARNICK ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Agins et ux. v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1980)
  …the appellants’ claim for declaratory relief, the California Supreme Court held that the zoning ordinances had not deprived the appellants of their property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.5 We noted probable jurisdiction. 444 U. S. 1011 (1980). We now affirm the holding that the zoning ordinances on their face do not take the appellants’ property without just compensation.6 [*260] II The Fifth Amendment guarantees that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without j…
• Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (U.S. 1980)
  …a residence that is also used as a “place of employment.” Accordingly, the court held that the statute, both on its face and as applied to appellees, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.2 We noted probable jurisdiction. 444 U. S. 1011 (1980). We affirm. II As the Court of Appeals observed, this is not the first instance in which this Court has had occasion to consider the constitutionality of an enactment selectively proscribing peaceful picketing on the basis of the placard’s…
• Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (U.S. 1980)
  …derberger’s prosecution has no effect on [petitioner’s] conviction.” Id., at 1078. Because the question presented is one of importance to the administration of criminal justice on which the Courts of Appeals are in conflict, we granted certiorari.7 444 U. S. 1011. We affirm. II Petitioner makes two main arguments: first, that Congress in enacting 18 U. S. C. § 2 did not intend to authorize prosecution of an aider and abettor after the principal has been acquitted of the offense charged; second, that, even…