Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

ALASKA PACKERS ASSOCIATION v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION et al. (1928)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
ALASKA PACKERS ASSOCIATION v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION et al.
Term: 1927
Important Dates
Argued: March 2, 1928
Decided: April 9, 1928
Outcome
Affirmed (includes modified)
Vote
9-0
Majority
Louis Dembitz BrandeisPierce ButlerOliver Wendell HolmesJames Clark McReynoldsEdward Terry SanfordHarlan Fiske StoneGeorge SutherlandWilliam Howard TaftWillis Van Devanter

ALASKA PACKERS ASSOCIATION v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION et al. is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 9, 1928. The case was argued before the court on March 2, 1928.

In a 9-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court. The case originated from the California State Supreme Court.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1920s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Taft Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Economic Activity - Liability, other than as in sufficiency of evidence, election of remedies, punitive damages
  • Petitioner: employer. If employer's relations with employees are governed by the nature of the employer's business (e.g., railroad, boat), rather than labor law generally, the more specific designation is used in place of Employer.
  • Petitioner state: Unknown
  • Respondent type: State commission, board, committee, or authority
  • Respondent state: California
  • Citation: 276 U.S. 467
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Cert
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: William Howard Taft
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: James Clark McReynolds

These data points were accessed from The Supreme Court Database, which also attempts to categorize the ideological direction of the court's ruling in each case. This case's ruling was categorized as liberal.

See also

External links

Footnotes