Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

COOPER et al. v. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND (1984)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
COOPER et al. v. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND
Term: 1983
Important Dates
Argued: March 19, 1984
Decided: June 25, 1984
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
8-0
Majority
Harry BlackmunWilliam BrennanWarren BurgerSandra Day O'ConnorWilliam RehnquistJohn Paul StevensByron White
Concurring
Thurgood Marshall

COOPER et al. v. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 25, 1984. The case was argued before the court on March 19, 1984.

In an 8-0 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 North Carolina Western U.S. District Court.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1980s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Burger Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Civil Rights - employment discrimination: on basis of race, age, religion, illegitimacy, national origin, or working conditions.
  • Petitioner: Racial or ethnic minority employee or job applicant
  • Petitioner state: Unknown
  • Respondent type: 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.
  • Respondent state: Unknown
  • Citation: 467 U.S. 867
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Cert
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: Warren Burger
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: John Paul Stevens

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