Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. ET AL. v. NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (1947)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. ET AL. v. NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Term: 1946
Important Dates
Argued: December 14, 1946
Decided: April 7, 1947
Outcome
Reversed
Vote
9-0
Majority
Hugo BlackHarold BurtonWilliam DouglasRobert JacksonStanley ReedFrederick Vinson
Concurring
Felix FrankfurterFrank MurphyWiley Rutledge

BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. ET AL. v. NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 7, 1947. The case was argued before the court on December 14, 1946.

In a 9-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower court. The case originated from the New York State Trial Court.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1940s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Vinson Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Federalism - federal pre-emption of state legislation or regulation. cf. state regulation of business. rarely involves union activity. Does not involve constitutional interpretation unless the Court says it does.
  • 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: New York
  • Citation: 330 U.S. 767
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Appeal
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: Frederick Vinson
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: Robert Jackson

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