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

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al. v. AUTOMATED MEDICAL LABORATORIES, INC. (1985)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al. v. AUTOMATED MEDICAL LABORATORIES, INC.
Term: 1984
Important Dates
Argued: April 16, 1985
Decided: June 3, 1985
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Harry BlackmunWilliam BrennanWarren BurgerThurgood MarshallSandra Day O'ConnorLewis PowellWilliam RehnquistJohn Paul StevensByron White

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al. v. AUTOMATED MEDICAL LABORATORIES, INC. is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 3, 1985. The case was argued before the court on April 16, 1985.

In a 9-0 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 Florida Middle 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: 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: County government or county governmental unit, except school district
  • Petitioner state: Florida
  • Respondent type: Health organization or person, nursing home, medical clinic or laboratory, chiropractor
  • Respondent state: Unknown
  • Citation: 471 U.S. 707
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Appeal
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: Warren Burger
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: Thurgood Marshall

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 conservative.

See also

External links

Footnotes