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

HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC., et al. v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. (2006)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC., et al. v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.
Term: 2005
Important Dates
Argued: March 21, 2006
Decided: June 15, 2006
Outcome
Vacated and remanded
Vote
6-3
Majority
Stephen BreyerRuth Bader GinsburgJohn RobertsAntonin ScaliaJohn Paul StevensClarence Thomas
Dissenting
Samuel AlitoAnthony KennedyDavid Souter

HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC., et al. v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 15, 2006. The case was argued before the court on March 21, 2006.

In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. The case originated from the West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court.

For a full list of cases decided in the 2000s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Roberts Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Economic Activity - Bankruptcy (except in the context of priority of federal fiscal claims)
  • 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: Insurance company, or surety
  • Respondent state: Unknown
  • Citation: 547 U.S. 651
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Cert
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: John Roberts
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

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