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

DOLORES M. OUBRE v. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. (1998)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
DOLORES M. OUBRE v. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
Term: 1997
Important Dates
Argued: November 12, 1997
Decided: January 26, 1998
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
6-3
Majority
Ruth Bader GinsburgAnthony KennedyDavid SouterJohn Paul Stevens
Concurring
Stephen BreyerSandra Day O'Connor
Dissenting
William RehnquistAntonin ScaliaClarence Thomas

DOLORES M. OUBRE v. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 26, 1998. The case was argued before the court on November 12, 1997.

In a 6-3 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 Louisiana Eastern 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: Civil Rights - employment discrimination: on basis of race, age, religion, illegitimacy, national origin, or working conditions.
  • Petitioner: Employee, or job applicant, including beneficiaries of
  • 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: 522 U.S. 422
  • 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: Anthony Kennedy

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