Cases by Issue - Venue

Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Constr. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

98-1960

Petitioner

Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bill Harbert Constr. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

529 U.S. 193 (2000)

Argued

Monday, January 10, 2000

Decided

Tuesday, March 21, 2000

Advocates

Daniel H. Bromberg (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Susan S. Wagner (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

In 1995, Cortez Byrd Chips hired Bill Harbert Construction to install a chip mill in Mississippi. Byrd and Harbert agreed that any ensuing disputes would be decided by arbitration. After the installation, Harbert demanded an upward adjustment on the bill. Byrd refused, claiming that Harbert had not submitted a written statement requesting additional compensation as required under their contract. Harbert called in the American Arbitration Association. Arbitration was conducted in Alabama and Harbert received an award. In response, Byrd sought to vacate or modify the award in a Federal District Court of Mississippi, where the contract was performed. Harbert then sought to confirm the award in Alabama. The latter court refused to dismiss, transfer, or stay its action, concluding that venue was proper only there because "[t]he place of arbitration determines the jurisdiction of the court," and it entered judgment for Harbert. Byrd appealed, claiming that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provided that the case should be deferred to Mississippi because the suit had been filed there first. In affirming, the Court of Appeals held that, under the FAA, venue for motions to confirm, vacate, or modify awards was exclusively in the district where the arbitration award was made, and thus venue was limited to the Alabama court.

Question

Do the venue provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act limit motions to confirm, vacate, or modify an arbitration award to the district where the award was made?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 9 U.S.C. 9

No. In an unanimous opinion, delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that the "FAA's venue provisions are permissive, allowing a motion to confirm, vacate, or modify to be brought either in the district where the award was made or in any district proper under the general venue statute." Writing for the Court, Justice Souter reasoned that because both the history and function of the FAA's venue provisions dictate that they were meant to expand, not limit, venue choice, it was appropriate for Cortez Byrd to seek to vacate the arbitrator's award in federal court in Mississippi.

United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

97-1139

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rodriguez-Moreno

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

526 U.S. 275 (1999)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1998

Decided

Tuesday, March 30, 1999

Advocates

John P. McDonald (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Paul R. Q. Wolfson (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Jacinto Rodriguez-Moreno and others were hired by a drug distributor to find a drug dealer who stole cocaine from the distributor while holding captive the botched deal's middleman, Ephrain Avendano. In pursuit of the dealer, Rodriguez-Moreno took Avendano from Texas to New Jersey to New York to Maryland. In Maryland, Rodriguez-Moreno took possession of a revolver and threatened to kill Avendano. However, Avendano escaped and called the police. Rodriguez-Moreno was then arrested. Rodriguez-Moreno was charged in a federal District Court with, among kidnapping and other violations, using and carrying a firearm in relation to Avendano's kidnapping, in violation of 18 USC section 924(c)(1), which proscribes using or carrying a firearm "during and in relation to any crime of violence." Rodriguez-Moreno moved to dismiss the firearm count for lack of venue. Rodriguez-Moreno argued that the only place where the Government had proved he had actually used a gun was Maryland and, therefore, venue was proper only in Maryland. The court denied the motion and a jury found Rodriguez-Moreno guilty of the count. In reversing, the Court of Appeals applied a "verb test," under which a violation of section 924(c)(1) is committed only in the district where a defendant "uses" or "carries" a firearm. Thus, the New Jersey court venue for the firearm count was improper.

Question

Is the venue for prosecuting a violation of 18 USC section 924(c)(1), which proscribes using or carrying a firearm "during and in relation to any crime of violence," proper only in the district were the firearm was used or carried?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 924

No. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that "[v]enue in a prosecution for using or carrying a firearm 'during and in relation to any crime of violence' in violation of section 924(c)(1) is proper in any district where the crime of violence was committed." Justice Thomas wrote for the Court that, "A kidnapping...does not end until the victim is free. It does not make sense...to speak of it in discrete geographic fragments....[I]t does not matter that respondent used the revolver...only in Maryland because he did so 'during and in relation to' a kidnaping that was begun in Texas and continued in New York, New Jersey, and Maryland." Justice Antonin Scalia, with joined by Justice John Paul Stevens, dissented, expressing the view that the crime defined in 924(c)(1) could be "committed only where the defendant both engages in the acts making up the predicate offense and uses or carries the gun." Moreover, Justice Scalia argued, because the accused's use of the gun occurred only in Maryland, venue was proper only there.

United States v. Cabrales

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

97-643

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cabrales

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

524 U.S. 1 (1998)

Argued

Wednesday, April 29, 1998

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1998

Advocates

John W. Rogers (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Malcolm L. Stewart (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

An indictment returned in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri charged Vickie S. Cabrales with various charges of money laundering. The incident alleged that Cabrales deposited $40,000 with the AmSouth Bank of Florida, of which she later withdrew $38,000. The money was traceable to illegal cocaine sales in Missouri. Cabrales moved to dismiss the indictment for improper venue. Because the money-laundering activity occurred entirely in Florida, the court dismissed two of the three counts against Cabrales. In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that Article III, the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 18 required that a person be tried where the charged offense was committed. The court also noted that laundering alleged in the indictment occurred entirely in Florida and that the Government did not assert that Cabrales transported the money from Missouri to Florida.

Question

May a defendant in a federal money-laundering case in which all the transactions occurred in one state be prosecuted in a second state?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Cabrales, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that Missouri is not a place of proper venue for the money-laundering offenses with which Cabrales is charged. Rejecting the Government's "continuing offense" argument, under which Cabrales would have been triable in more than one place, the Court noted that the laundering transactions occurred only in Florida, making venue in Missouri improper. The Court also reasoned that if the Government could link Cabrales to the drug-trafficking activity, then she could be prosecuted for those violations in Missouri with her money laundering in Florida shown as overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Ford

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-779

Petitioner

Burlington Northern Railroad Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ford et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 648 (1992)

Argued

Monday, April 20, 1992

Decided

Friday, June 12, 1992

Advocates

Betty Jo Christian (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Joel I. Klein (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Ford, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Ferens v. John Deere Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:12 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1512

Petitioner

Ferens

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

John Deere Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 516 (1990)

Argued

Monday, November 6, 1989

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1990

Advocates

Richard B. Tucker, III (on behalf of the Petitioners)

David P. Helwig (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Ferens, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1404

None

Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1908

Petitioner

Stewart Organization, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ricoh Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 22 (1988)

Argued

Monday, February 29, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1988

Advocates

Scott M. Phelps (on behalf of the Respondents)

F. A. Flowers, III (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Ricoh Corp., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1404

None

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-848

Petitioner

Piper Aircraft Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reyno

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 80-883

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 235 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, October 14, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, December 8, 1981

Advocates

Daniel C. Cathcart (on behalf of the Respondent)

James M. Fitzsimons (on behalf of Petitioner, Piper Aircraft Company)

Warner W. Gardner (on behalf of the Petitioner, Hartzell Propeller, Inc)

Facts of the Case

(This summary was prepared by Tom Feledy.)

A British company, flying an airplane manufactured by Piper, a Pennsylvania company, equipped with propellers made by Hartzell, an Ohio company, conducted a charter flight in Scotland for five Scottish citizens. When the plane crashed, killing all on board, the next of kin, also Scottish, had a Los Angeles-based lawyer sue Piper and Hartzell for wrongful death. The suit was filed in a California state court, then removed to Federal District Court in California, and finally transferred to Federal District Court in Pennsylvania. There it was dismissed for forum non conveniens under the determination that the case should be tried in Scotland: the crash had occurred, the crash investigation had been conducted there by British authorities, and the pilot's estate, the plane's owners, and the charter company were all located there. However, respondents successfully appealed, claiming that substantive law in Scotland would be unfavorable to their case. Scotland, unlike Pennsylvania, had no strict liability law, which, along with negligence, respondents were relying upon in order to prevail.

Question

Does the possibility of an unfavorable change in law bar dismissal under forum non conveniens?

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Piper Aircraft Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

Yes. In a 7-3 majority opinion authored by Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Court held that the District Court properly weighed private and public interests using the Gulf Oil v. Gilbert test to determine that the trial should be held in Scotland. The possibility of a change in substantive law should ordinarily not be given conclusive or even substantial weight in the forum non conveniens inquiry. Justices Lewis Powell and Sandra Day o"Connor did not participate.

Stafford v. Briggs

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1546

Petitioner

Stafford

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Briggs

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Colby, Director, Central Intelligence Agency, et al. v. Driver et al., No. 78-303

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 527 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, April 24, 1979

Reargued:

Wednesday, November 7, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1980

Advocates

Peter Megaree Brown (on behalf of the petitioners)

Earl H. Nemser (on behalf of the petitioners)

Doris Peterson (on behalf of the respondents)

Elinor Hadley Stillman (on behalf of the petitioners)

Melvin L. Wulf (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Stafford, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1391

None

Leroy v. Great Western United Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:12:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-759

Appellee

Great Western United Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Leroy

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 173 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, April 17, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, June 26, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Leroy, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank v. Bougas

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-398

Petitioner

Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bougas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 35 (1977)

Argued

Monday, October 3, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, November 8, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bougas, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 94

None

Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:12:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-268

Petitioner

Radzanower

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Touche Ross & Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 148 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, March 30, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Touche Ross & Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Starnes

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:12:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1481

Appellee

Starnes

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

American Motorists Ins. Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 637 (1976)

Argued

Monday, February 23, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, May 19, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Starnes, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

F. D. Rich Co., v. Industrial Lumber Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:45 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1382

Petitioner

F. D. Rich Co.,

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Industrial Lumber Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 116 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, January 9, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, May 28, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for F. D. Rich Co.,, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miller

None

Brunette Machine Wks. v. Kockum Industries

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-314

Petitioner

Brunette Machine Wks.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kockum Industries

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 706 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, March 23, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, June 7, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Kockum Industries, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1391

None

Denver & R. G. W. R. Co. v. Trainmen

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:12 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

794

Petitioner

Denver & R. G. W. R. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Trainmen

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 556 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, April 19, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 5, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Denver & R. G. W. R. Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1391

None

Pure Oil Co. v. Suarez

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

692

Petitioner

Pure Oil Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Suarez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 202 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, April 19, 1966

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Suarez, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1391

None

Federal Power Comm'n v. Texaco

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

386

Petitioner

Federal Power Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Texaco

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 33 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, March 25, 1964

Decided

Monday, April 20, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Federal Power Comm'n, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Natural Gas, or Natural Gas Policy Acts

None

Platt v. Minnesota Mining Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

113

Petitioner

Platt

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Minnesota Mining Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 240 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, January 9, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Platt, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Van Dusen v. Barrack

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Van Dusen

Respondent

Barrack

Consolidation

No. 80

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 612 (1964)

Argued

January 8-9, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 30, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Van Dusen, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1404

None

Parsons v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Parsons

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chesapeake & O. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 71 (1963)

Argued

Wednesday, October 23, 1963

Decided

Tuesday, November 12, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Parsons, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1404

None

Southern Const. Co. v. Pickard

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Southern Const. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pickard

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

371 U.S. 57 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, October 16, 1962

Decided

Monday, November 5, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Southern Const. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miller

None

Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

101

Petitioner

Goldlawr, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Heiman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 463 (1962)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1962

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Goldlawr, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1406

None

Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Langdeau

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Langdeau

Respondent

Mercantile Nat. Bank

Consolidation

No. 15

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

371 U.S. 555 (1963)

Argued

February 27-28, 1962

Reargued:

Wednesday, December 5, 1962

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mercantile Nat. Bank, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 94

None

Schnell v. Peter Eckrich & Sons

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

219

Petitioner

Schnell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Peter Eckrich & Sons

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

365 U.S. 260 (1961)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1961

Decided

Monday, February 20, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Peter Eckrich & Sons, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1400

None

Travis v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Travis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

364 U.S. 631 (1961)

Argued

Tuesday, December 13, 1960

Decided

Monday, January 16, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Continental Grain Co. v. Barge Fbl-585

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

229

Petitioner

Continental Grain Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Barge Fbl-585

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

364 U.S. 19 (1960)

Argued

Wednesday, April 20, 1960

Decided

Monday, June 27, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Barge Fbl-585, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1404

None

Hoffman v. Blaski

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Hoffman

Respondent

Blaski

Consolidation

No. 26, Sullivan v. Behimer et al.

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

363 U.S. 335 (1960)

Argued

April 19-20, 1960

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Blaski, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1404

None

Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

310

Petitioner

Fourco Glass Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Transmirra Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

353 U.S. 222 (1957)

Argued

Tuesday, April 2, 1957

Decided

Monday, April 29, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Fourco Glass Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1400

None