Know your vote. Take a look at your sample ballot now!

FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO. et al. v. BRUCH et al. (1989)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO. et al. v. BRUCH et al.
Term: 1988
Important Dates
Argued: November 30, 1988
Decided: February 21, 1989
Outcome
Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Harry BlackmunWilliam BrennanAnthony KennedyThurgood MarshallSandra Day O'ConnorWilliam RehnquistJohn Paul StevensByron White
Concurring
Antonin Scalia

FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO. et al. v. BRUCH et al. is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 21, 1989. The case was argued before the court on November 30, 1988.

In a 9-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part the ruling of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. The case originated from the Pennsylvania Eastern 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 Rehnquist Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Economic Activity - Employee Retirement Income Security Act (cf. union trust funds)
  • 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: 489 U.S. 101
  • 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: Sandra Day O'Connor

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