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

ALBERT HESS AND CHARLES F. WALSH v. PORT AUTHORITY TRANS-HUDSON CORPORATION (1994)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
ALBERT HESS AND CHARLES F. WALSH v. PORT AUTHORITY TRANS-HUDSON CORPORATION
Term: 1994
Important Dates
Argued: October 3, 1994
Decided: November 14, 1994
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
5-4
Majority
Stephen BreyerRuth Bader GinsburgAnthony KennedyDavid Souter
Concurring
John Paul Stevens
Dissenting
Sandra Day O'ConnorWilliam RehnquistAntonin ScaliaClarence Thomas

ALBERT HESS AND CHARLES F. WALSH v. PORT AUTHORITY TRANS-HUDSON CORPORATION is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on November 14, 1994. The case was argued before the court on October 3, 1994.

In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. The case originated from the New Jersey U.S. District Court.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1990s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Rehnquist Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Economic Activity - Liability, governmental: tort or contract actions by or against government or governmental officials other than defense of criminal actions brought under a civil rights action.
  • Petitioner: Governmental employee or job applicant
  • Petitioner state: Interstate Compact
  • Respondent type: Interstate compact
  • Respondent state: Unknown
  • Citation: 513 U.S. 30
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Cert
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: William Rehnquist
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

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 conservative.

See also

External links

Footnotes