Cases by Issue - Federal Preemption of State Jurisdiction

San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:47:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

04-340

Petitioner

San Remo Hotel, L.P., et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

City and County of San Francisco, California, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

545 U.S. ___ (2005)

Granted

Friday, December 10, 2004

Argued

Monday, March 28, 2005

Decided

Monday, June 20, 2005

Advocates

Paul F. Utrecht (argued the cause for Petitioners)

Seth P. Waxman (argued the cause for Respondents)

Facts of the Case

The owners and operators of a hotel in San Francisco sued the city in state court, arguing a $567,000 conversion fee they had to pay in 1996 was an unconstitutional taking of private property. After California courts rejected this argument, the hoteliers argued in federal district court that the fee violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause. This claim depended on issues identical to those that had been resolved in their state-court suit. The federal full faith and credit statute, however, barred litigants from suing in federal court when that suit was based on issues that had been resolved in state court (the rule of "issue preclusion"). The hoteliers asked the district court to exempt from the statute claims brought under the takings clause.

Question

Should federal courts make an exception to the full faith and credit statute for Fifth Amendment takings clause claims?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for San Francisco, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

No. In a 9-0 judgment delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court refused to create an exception to the full faith and credit statute in order to provide a federal forum for litigants seeking to advance federal takings claims. The Court rejected the argument that whenever plaintiffs reserved their federal takings claims in state court, federal courts should review the reserved federal claims, regardless of the issues decided by the state court. Moreover, federal courts were not free to disregard the full faith and credit statute simply to guarantee that all takings plaintiffs can sue in federal court.

Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:47:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

03-388

Petitioner

Dennis Bates, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dow Agrosciences LLC

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

544 U.S. 431 (2005)

Granted

Monday, June 28, 2004

Argued

Monday, January 10, 2005

Decided

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Advocates

Lisa S. Blatt (argued the cause for Respondent, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae)

David C. Frederick (argued the cause for Petitioners)

Seth P. Waxman (argued the cause for Respondent)

Facts of the Case

A group of peanut farmers in Texas threatened to sue Dow Agrosciences in state court for damages caused by one of Dow's herbicides. The farmers alleged Dow violated Texas labeling requirements. Dow asked a federal district court to rule the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempted and therefore prohibited the farmers' state law claims. The district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled FIFRA expressly prohibited additional state labeling requirements such as Texas'.

Question

Does the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempt farmers' state tort claims alleging that Dow's herbicide damaged crops?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Bates, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

No. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the peanut farmers could sue Dow in state court. The Court reasoned that FIFRA preempts only state-law "requirements for labeling or packaging." The peanut farmers' defective manufacture, negligent testing, and breach of warranty claims were based on common-law and did not necessarily require that Dow label or package products in a particular way. The farmers' fraud and negligent-failure to warn claims, by contrast, were based on common-law rules that qualified as "requirements for labeling or packaging." However, FIFRA preempted only state-law labeling requirements" that were "in addition to or different from" FIFRA's labeling standards. The Court sent back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the question whether Texas law governing fraud and failure-to-warn claims was parallel to FIFRA.

Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:48:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

01-706

Petitioner

Sprietsma

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mercury Marine

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

537 U.S. 51 (2002)

Argued

Tuesday, October 15, 2002

Decided

Tuesday, December 3, 2002

Advocates

Leslie A. Brueckner (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Malcolm L. Stewart (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Stephen M. Shapiro (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

Rex Sprietsma's wife was killed in a boating accident when she was struck by the propeller of a motor made by Mercury Marine. Sprietsma sued Mercury Marine under Illinois common law, alleging that his wife's injuries were caused by an unreasonably dangerous motor. The trial court, the intermediate court, and the Illinois Supreme Court all dismissed the complaint, finding the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 (FBSA) preempted such state common-law claims.

Question

Does the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 preempt state common-law claims related to propeller safety?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Sprietsma, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 46 U.S.C. 4301

No. In an opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held 8-0 that neither the text nor the intent of the FBSA preempts Sprietsma's common law claims, either explicitly or implicitly. Justice Stevens wrote, "Absent a contrary decision by the Coast Guard" - the agency in charge of propeller- safety regulations - "the concern with uniformity does not justify the displacement of state common-law remedies that compensate accident victims..."

Norfolk Southern R. Co. v. Shanklin

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

99-312

Petitioner

Norfolk Southern R. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shanklin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

529 U.S. 344 (2000)

Argued

Wednesday, March 1, 2000

Decided

Monday, April 17, 2000

Advocates

Gregory S. Coleman (Austin, Texas, argued the cause for the Texas, et al., as amici curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the petitioner)

Patricia A. Millett (Argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of court, supporting the respondent)

Carter G. Phillips (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Thomas C. Goldstein (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

In 1993, Eddie Shanklin was struck and killed by a Norfolk Southern train at a railroad intersection. At the time of the accident, the intersection was equipped with advanced warning signs and reflectorized crossbucks, which were installed with federal funds under the Federal Railway-Highway Crossings Program and were fully compliant with the federal standards for such devices. Afterwards, Dedra Shanklin, Mr. Shanklin's widow, brought a diversity wrongful death action against Norfolk Southern. Shanklin alleged, based on Tennessee statutory and common law, that Norfolk Southern had been negligent by failing to maintain adequate warning devices at the crossing. Norfolk Southern moved for summary judgment on the ground that the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (FRSA) pre-empted Shanklin's suit. The FRSA contains an express pre- emption provision, which allows States to enforce their railroad safety measures until the Secretary of Transportation prescribes a regulation or issues an order covering the subject matter of the State requirement. The District Court held that Shanklin's allegation that the signs installed at the crossing were inadequate was not pre-empted and, ultimately, entered judgement for her. In affirming, the Court of Appeals reasoned that federal funding alone was insufficient to trigger pre-emption of state tort actions under the FRSA. The court concluded that because the Tennessee Department of Transportation had installed the signs for the purpose of providing "minimum protection," no individualized determination of adequacy had be made by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under the Crossings Program.

Question

Does the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 pre-empt tort claims, based on State statutory and common law, concerning a railroad's failure to maintain adequate warning devices at crossings where federal funds have participated in the installation of the devices?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Norfolk Southern R. Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 49 U.S.C. 2010

Yes. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that railroads cannot b sued under state tort law over allegedly inadequate warning devices at rail crossings if the equipment installed was federally funded. Justice O'Connor wrote for the Court that "[o]nce the FHWA approved the project and the signs were installed using federal funds, the federal standard for adequacy displaced Tennessee statutory and common law addressing the same subject, thereby pre-empting [Shanklin's] claim." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote that the consequence of the Court's decision "is that state negligence law is displaced with no substantive federal standard of conduct to fill the void."

Medtronic Inc. v. Lohr

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

95-754

Petitioner

Medtronic Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lohr

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Lohr et vir v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 95-886

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

518 U.S. 470 (1996)

Argued

Tuesday, April 23, 1996

Decided

Wednesday, June 26, 1996

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (Department of Justice, argued the cause on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, in support of Lora Lohr, et vir)

Arthur R. Miller (Argued the cause on behalf of Medtronic, Inc)

Brian Wolfman (Argued the cause on behalf of Lora Lohr, et vir)

Facts of the Case

The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA) provides for "the safety and effectiveness of medical devices intended for human use," and classifies such devices based on their level of risk. Class III devices pose the greatest risk and, thus, are subject to a rigorous premarket approval (PMA) process. However, two statutory exceptions to this process exist. Because Medtronic, Inc.'s pacemaker is a Class III device found substantially equivalent to a pre-existing device, it can avoid the PMA process. In 1990, Lora Lohr's Medtronic pacemaker failed, allegedly according to a defect. Lohr and her spouse filed a Florida state-court suit, alleging both negligence and strict- liability claims. Medtronic removed the case to federal district court. The court then dismissed the case as pre-empted by 21 USC section 360k(a), which provides that "no State...may establish or continue in effect with respect to a device intended for human use any requirement (1) which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable under [the MDA] to the device, and (2) which relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device or to any other matter included in a requirement applicable to the device under [the Act]." Reversing and affirming in part, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Lohrs' negligent design claims were not pre-empted, but that their negligent manufacturing and failure to warn claims were. (This case was decided together with 95-886, Lohr et vir v. Medtronic, Inc.)

Question

Do the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 pre-empt a state common-law negligence action against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective medical device?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Lohr, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic, and related statutes

No. In an opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the Court of Appeals decision was reversed insofar as it held that any of the claims were pre-empted and affirmed insofar as it rejected any pre-emption defense. In a 9-0 vote, the Court allowed the lawsuit based on alleged defects in the pacemaker's design to proceed. In a 5-4 vote, the Court allowed the lawsuit to proceed on its claims of alleged defects in its manufacturing and failure to warn. Justice Stevens reasoned that the MDA was not intended to pre-empt "traditional common-law remedies against manufacturers and distributors of defective devices," as long as they paralleled federal requirements.

Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:23:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-2058

Petitioner

Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Norris

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Opinion

512 U.S. 246 (1994)

Argued

Thursday, April 28, 1994

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1994

Advocates

Susan Oki Mollway (on behalf of the Respondent)

Richard H. Seamon (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondent)

Kenneth B. Hipp (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Norris, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Railway Labor

None

American Dredging v. Miller

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:23:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1950

Petitioner

American Dredging

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Miller

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Opinion

510 U.S. 443 (1994)

Argued

Tuesday, November 9, 1993

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1994

Advocates

John F. Manning (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondent)

Timothy J. Falcon (on behalf of the Respondent)

Thomas J. Wagner (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Robert Miller, a Mississippi resident who had moved north to find work, was injured while working as a seaman for American Dredging Company, a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. Miller returned home to Mississippi, and filed a suit against the company in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Louisiana. The suit was filed under the Jones Act, a federal law that allows a seaman to sue his employer in either federal or state court when he suffers personal injury.

American Dredging moved to dismiss the case under the doctrine of "forum non conveniens," which allows a court to dismiss a case if it is filed in a place that is unnecessarily and significantly inconvenient to the defendant. The trial court agreed, holding that a Louisiana law making the doctrine of "forum non conveniens" inapplicable in Jones Act cases was superseded by federal maritime law (law that deals with oceanic commerce). An appeals court affirmed the decision, but the Louisiana Supreme Court overturned it, holding that the Louisiana law was not superseded by federal maritime law.

Question

Does the Constitutional grant of federal jurisdiction over maritime law (found in Article III Section 2) prevent states from prohibiting (in maritime cases) "forum non conveniens" claims that, under federal law, would be permitted?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Miller, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Jones, or Death on the High Seas

No. The Court decided that "forum non conveniens" claims were only procedural, not substantive, and that national uniformity was therefore not required by the Constitution. Writing for the seven-member majority, Justice Antonin Scalia stated "venue is a matter that goes to process rather than substantive rights -- determining which among various competent courts will decide the case. Uniformity of process (beyond the rudimentary elements of procedural fairness) is assuredly not what the law of admiralty seeks to achieve, since it is supposed to apply in all the courts of the world." Further, Scalia wrote that the amount of discretion left to the trial court by the forum non conveniens doctrine necessarily meant that, even if it was embraced by every state, it would still not result in uniformity.

Csx Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:00:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-790

Petitioner

Csx Transportation, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Easterwood

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 91-1206

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 658 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, January 12, 1993

Decided

Wednesday, April 21, 1993

Advocates

Tambra P. Colston (on behalf of the Respondent/Cross-petitioner)

Maureen E. Mahoney (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae)

Howard J. Trienens (on behalf of the Petitioner/Cross-respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Csx Transportation, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 45 U.S.C. 434

None

Cipollone v. Liggett Group

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:25 +0000

Location

Residence of Rose Cipollone Little Ferry, NJ

United States

40° 51' 10.3608" N, 74° 2' 31.506" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1038

Petitioner

Cipollone

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Liggett Group

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 504 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, October 8, 1991

Reargued:

Monday, January 13, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, June 24, 1992

Advocates

Marc Z. Edell (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Laurence H. Tribe (Reargued the cause for the petitioner)

H. Bartow Farr, III (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Rose Cipollone died at 58 from lung cancer. She smoked for 42 years. Before her death, she and her husband sued several cigarette manufacturers in federal court for damages resulting from Mrs. Cipollone lung cancer. A trial court judgment of $400,000 was reserved in the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Cipollone family appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Question

Do federally mandated cigarette warnings pre-empt the Cipollones' common law claims against cigarette manufacturers?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Cipollone, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 1331

In a complicated 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that federally mandated warnings do not bar smokers from suing manufacturers under state personal- injury laws. The justices ruled that such suits cannot be based on claims that cigarette advertising failed to warn smokers of smoking dangers. But the justices also ruled that individuals may press claims alleging that the tobacco companies made fraudulent or inaccurate statements in their advertising or that the companies conspired to mislead people about the health hazards of smoking.

Steelworkers v. Rawson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-322

Petitioner

Steelworkers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rawson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 362 (1990)

Argued

Monday, March 26, 1990

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1990

Advocates

George H. Cohen (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Kenneth B. Howard (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Steelworkers, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:18 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-431

Petitioner

Yellow Freight System, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Donnelly

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 820 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, February 28, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1990

Advocates

Jeffrey Ivan Pasek (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John J. Henely (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Donnelly, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Tafflin v. Levitt

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:53 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1650

Petitioner

Tafflin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Levitt

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 455 (1990)

Argued

Monday, November 27, 1989

Decided

Monday, January 22, 1990

Advocates

Andrew H. Marks (on behalf of the Respondents)

M. Norman Goldberger (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Levitt, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

None

Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Graham

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-266

Petitioner

Oklahoma Tax Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Graham

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 838 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, February 21, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, March 29, 1989

Advocates

David Allen Miley (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Bob Rabon (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Oklahoma Tax Commission, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1331

None

Lingle v. Norge Division Of Magic Chef, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-259

Petitioner

Lingle

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Norge Division Of Magic Chef, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 399 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, March 23, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1988

Advocates

Charles C. Jackson (on behalf of the respondent)

Paul Alan Levy (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Lingle, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-526

Petitioner

Caterpillar Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Williams

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 386 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, April 21, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, June 9, 1987

Advocates

Gerald D Skoning (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Fritz Wollett (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Williams, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1043

Petitioner

Pilot Life Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dedeaux

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 41 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, January 21, 1987

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1987

Advocates

John E. Nolan, Jr. (on behalf of Petitioner)

William G. Walker (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Pilot Life Ins. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-686

Petitioner

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Taylor

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 85-688

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 58 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, January 21, 1987

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1987

Advocates

Peter Edward Scheer (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Electrical Workers v. Hechler

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:02 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1360

Petitioner

Electrical Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hechler

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 851 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, January 20, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, May 26, 1987

Advocates

Joel S. Perwin (on behalf of Respondent)

Laurence E. Gold (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Electrical Workers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Longshoremen v. Davis

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:13 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-217

Appellee

Davis

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Longshoremen

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 380 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, February 25, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, May 27, 1986

Advocates

Bayless E. Biles (on behalf of Appellee)

Charles R. Goldburg (on behalf of Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Davis, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1748

Petitioner

Allis-Chalmers Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lueck

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 202 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, January 16, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, April 16, 1985

Advocates

Gerald S. Boisits (on behalf of the Respondent)

Theophil C. Kammholz (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Allis-Chalmers Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Silkwood v. Kerr-Mcgee Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-2159

Appellee

Kerr-Mcgee Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Silkwood

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

464 U.S. 238 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, October 4, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, January 11, 1984

Advocates

C. Lee Cook, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellees)

Michael H. Gottesman (on behalf of the Appellant)

John H. Garvey (as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Silkwood, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1254

None

Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-2257

Petitioner

Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

461 U.S. 731 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, March 29, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1983

Advocates

Carolyn F. Corwin (on behalf of the Respondents)

Lawrence Allen Katz (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Block v. North Dakota

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:14 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-2337

Petitioner

Block

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

North Dakota

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 82-132

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

461 U.S. 273 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, February 23, 1983

Decided

Monday, May 2, 1983

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Robert O. Wefald (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Block, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2409

None

Belknap, Inc. v. Hale

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1966

Petitioner

Belknap, Inc.

Respondent

Hale

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

463 U.S. 491 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, January 11, 1983

Decided

Thursday, June 30, 1983

Advocates

Larry E. Forrester (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board as amicus curiae)

Cecil Davenport (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Hale, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Operating Engineers v. Jones

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1574

Appellee

Jones

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Operating Engineers

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 669 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, December 1, 1982

Decided

Monday, April 4, 1983

Advocates

Elinor Hadley Stillman (on behalf of NLRB as amicus curiae)

Robert F. Gore (on behalf of the Appellee)

Laurence E. Gold (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Operating Engineers, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Hall

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1789

Petitioner

Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hall

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 571 (1981)

Argued

Monday, April 20, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, July 7, 1981

Advocates

James Fleet Howell (on behalf of the Respondents)

Reuben Goldberg (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Natural Gas, or Natural Gas Policy Acts

None

Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-590

Petitioner

Gulf Offshore Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mobil Oil Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 473 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, March 31, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, July 1, 1981

Advocates

Frank E. Caton (on behalf of Respondent Mobil Oil Corporation)

Charles D. Kennedy (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Joseph D. Jamail (on behalf of Respondent Steven Gaedecke)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Gulf Offshore Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 43 U.S.C. 1331

None

Chicago & N. W. Tr. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1336

Petitioner

Chicago & N. W. Tr. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kalo Brick & Tile

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 311 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, December 9, 1980

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1981

Advocates

M. Gene Blackburn (on behalf of the Respondent)

Henri F. Rush, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner as amicus curiae)

Bruce E. Johnson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Chicago & N. W. Tr. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Carpenters

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-750

Petitioner

Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Carpenters

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 180 (1978)

Argued

Monday, November 7, 1977

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Sears, Roebuck & Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Farmer v. Carpenters

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-804

Petitioner

Farmer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Carpenters

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 290 (1977)

Argued

Monday, November 8, 1976

Decided

Monday, March 7, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Farmer, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Machinists v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Comm'n

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-185

Petitioner

Machinists

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Comm'n

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 132 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1976

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Machinists, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

American Radio Assn. v. Mobile S. S. Assn.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-748

Petitioner

American Radio Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mobile S. S. Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

419 U.S. 215 (1974)

Argued

Monday, October 21, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, December 17, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mobile S. S. Assn., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

William E. Arnold Co. v. Carpenters

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-466

Petitioner

William E. Arnold Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Carpenters

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 12 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, March 20, 1974

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for William E. Arnold Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Windward Shipping v. American Radio Assn.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:21 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1061

Petitioner

Windward Shipping

Respondent

American Radio Assn.

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 104 (1974)

Argued

December 3-4, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, February 19, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Windward Shipping, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-93

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nash-Finch Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 138 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, October 19, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 6, 1971

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for NLRB, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2283

None

Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Motor Coach Employees

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lockridge

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 274 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, December 15, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Motor Coach Employees, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Longshoremen v. Ariadne Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

231

Petitioner

Longshoremen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ariadne Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

397 U.S. 195 (1970)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1970

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Longshoremen, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Taggart v. Weinacker's, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:14 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Taggart

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Weinacker's, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

397 U.S. 223 (1970)

Argued

Monday, January 12, 1970

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Weinacker's, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Railroad Trainmen v. Terminal Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Railroad Trainmen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Terminal Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 369 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, December 11, 1968

Decided

Tuesday, March 25, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Railroad Trainmen, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge 735

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

445

Petitioner

Avco Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aero Lodge 735

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 557 (1968)

Argued

Monday, March 11, 1968

Decided

Monday, April 8, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Aero Lodge 735, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Mine Workers v. Gibbs

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

243

Petitioner

Mine Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gibbs

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 715 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, January 20, 1966

Decided

Monday, March 28, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mine Workers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Linn v. Plant Guard Workers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Linn

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Plant Guard Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 53 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, November 18, 1965

Decided

Monday, February 21, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Linn, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Hanna Mining v. Marine Engineers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Hanna Mining

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Marine Engineers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 181 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, October 12, 1965

Decided

Monday, December 6, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hanna Mining, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Radio Union v. Broadcast Ser

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Radio Union v. Broadcast Ser

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 255 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, March 2, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 15, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Radio Union, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Liner v. Jafco, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:25 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Liner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jafco, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 301 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, November 21, 1963

Decided

Monday, January 6, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Liner, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Plumbers' Union v. Borden

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

541

Petitioner

Plumbers' Union

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Borden

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

373 U.S. 690 (1963)

Argued

Wednesday, April 24, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Plumbers' Union, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Iron Workers v. Perko

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

482

Petitioner

Iron Workers

Respondent

Perko

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

373 U.S. 701 (1963)

Argued

April 23-24, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Iron Workers, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Retail Clerks v. Schermerhorn

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Retail Clerks

Respondent

Schermerhorn

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 96 (1963)

Argued

Thursday, April 18, 1963

Reargued:

October 16-17, 1963

Decided

Monday, December 2, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Schermerhorn, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Incres S. S. Co. v. Maritime Workers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Incres S. S. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maritime Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

372 U.S. 24 (1963)

Argued

Wednesday, December 12, 1962

Decided

Monday, February 18, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Incres S. S. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Construction Laborers v. Curry

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Construction Laborers

Respondent

Curry

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

371 U.S. 542 (1963)

Argued

November 7-8, 1962

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Construction Laborers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None