Cases by Issue - Jurisdiction

Reynoldsville Casket Co. v. Hyde

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

94-3

Petitioner

Reynoldsville Casket Co. et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hyde

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

514 U.S. 749 (1995)

Argued

Monday, February 27, 1995

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1995

Advocates

William E. Riedel (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Timothy B. Dyk (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Reynoldsville Casket Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-44

Petitioner

Burnham

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 604 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, February 28, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1990

Advocates

Richard Sherman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James O. Devereaux (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-367

Appellee

Midwesco Enterprises

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Bendix Autolite Corp.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 888 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, March 23, 1988

Decided

Friday, June 17, 1988

Advocates

Noel C. Crowley (on behalf of the appellant)

Ira J. Bornstein (on behalf of the appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Midwesco Enterprises, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-352

Petitioner

Sun Oil Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wortman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 717 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, March 22, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, June 15, 1988

Advocates

Gordon Penny (on behalf of the respondent)

Gerald Sawatzky (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Wortman, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause

None

Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1052

Petitioner

Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Schlunk

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 694 (1988)

Argued

Monday, March 21, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, June 15, 1988

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (amicus curiae, supporting Respondent)

Herbert Rubin (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Jack Samuel Ring (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Schlunk, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Treaty

None

Omni Capital Int'l v. Rudolf Wolff & Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-740

Petitioner

Omni Capital Int'l

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rudolf Wolff & Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 97 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, October 6, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, December 8, 1987

Advocates

Robert A. Kutcher (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Elliot Paskoff (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Rudolf Wolff & Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-693

Petitioner

Asahi Metal Industry Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Superior Court

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 102 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, November 5, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1987

Advocates

Graydon S. Staring (on behalf of Petitioner)

Ronald R. Haven (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Asahi Metal Industry Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:13 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-233

Petitioner

Phillips Petroleum Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shutts

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 797 (1985)

Argued

Monday, February 25, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, June 26, 1985

Advocates

Joel I. Klein (on behalf of the respondent)

Arthur R. Miller (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Phillips Petroleum Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

Split Vote

None

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-2097

Petitioner

Burger King Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rudzewicz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 462 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, January 8, 1985

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1985

Advocates

Joel S. Perwin (on behalf of the appellant)

Thomas H. Oehmke (on behalf of the appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Burger King Corp., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Calder v. Jones

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1401

Petitioner

Calder

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jones

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 783 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, November 8, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, March 20, 1984

Advocates

John G. Kester (on behalf of the Appellant)

Paul S. Ablon (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Jones, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia v. Hall

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1127

Petitioner

Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hall

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 408 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, November 8, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, April 24, 1984

Advocates

George E. Pletcher (on behalf of the Respondent)

Thomas J. Whalen (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Insurance Corp. v. Compagnie Des Bauxites

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-440

Petitioner

Insurance Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Compagnie Des Bauxites

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 694 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, March 23, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1982

Advocates

Cloyd R. Mellott (on behalf of the Respondents)

Edmund K. Trent (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Compagnie Des Bauxites, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-938

Petitioner

Allstate Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hague

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 302 (1981)

Argued

Monday, October 6, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 1981

Advocates

Mark M. Nolan (on behalf of Petitioner)

Andreas F. Lowenfeld (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hague, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause

None

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1078

Petitioner

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Woodson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 286 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 3, 1979

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Rush v. Savchuk

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-952

Appellee

Savchuk

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Rush

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 320 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 3, 1979

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1980

Advocates

Edward H. Borkon (on behalf of the Appellee)

Oscar C. Adamson, II (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Rush, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Kulko v. California Superior Court

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-293

Appellee

California Superior Court

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Kulko

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 84 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, March 29, 1978

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Kulko, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Shaffer v. Heitner

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1812

Appellee

Heitner

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Shaffer

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 186 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, February 22, 1977

Decided

Friday, June 24, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Shaffer, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Western Union Co. v. Pennsylvania

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Western Union Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 71 (1961)

Argued

Thursday, October 12, 1961

Decided

Monday, December 4, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Western Union Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Hanson v. Denckla

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

107

Petitioner

Hanson

Respondent

Denckla

Consolidation

No. 117

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

357 U.S. 235 (1958)

Argued

March 10-11, 1958

Decided

Monday, June 23, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hanson, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Mcgee v. International Life Ins. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Mcgee

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

International Life Ins. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

355 U.S. 220 (1957)

Argued

Wednesday, November 20, 1957

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mcgee, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:26:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

302

Petitioner

Vanderbilt

Respondent

Vanderbilt

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

354 U.S. 416 (1957)

Argued

April 22-23, 1957

Decided

Monday, June 24, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Vanderbilt, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause

None