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

C. H. NICHOLS LUMBER COMPANY v. FRANSON (1906)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
C. H. NICHOLS LUMBER COMPANY v. FRANSON
Term: 1906
Important Dates
Argued: October 17, 1906
Decided: December 3, 1906
Outcome
Affirmed (includes modified)
Vote
8-0
Majority
David Josiah BrewerWilliam Rufus DayMelville Weston FullerJohn Marshall HarlanOliver Wendell HolmesJoseph McKennaRufus Wheeler PeckhamEdward Douglass White

C. H. NICHOLS LUMBER COMPANY v. FRANSON is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on December 3, 1906. The case was argued before the court on October 17, 1906.

In an 8-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court. The case originated from the Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1900s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Fuller Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Judicial Power - judicial administration: Supreme Court jurisdiction or authority on appeal or writ of error, from federal district courts or courts of appeals (cf. 753)
  • 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: Employee, or job applicant, including beneficiaries of
  • Respondent state: Unknown
  • Citation: 203 U.S. 278
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Writ of error
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: Melville Weston Fuller
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: Edward Douglass White

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