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

JAMES LARUE v. DEWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL (2008)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
JAMES LARUE v. DEWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL
Term: 2007
Important Dates
Argued: November 26, 2007
Decided: February 20, 2008
Outcome
Vacated and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Samuel AlitoStephen BreyerRuth Bader GinsburgDavid SouterJohn Paul Stevens
Concurring
Anthony KennedyJohn RobertsAntonin ScaliaClarence Thomas

JAMES LARUE v. DEWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 20, 2008. The case was argued before the court on November 26, 2007.

In a 9-0 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 South Carolina 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 - State or local government regulation, especially of business (cf. federal pre-emption of state court jurisdiction, federal pre-emption of state legislation or regulation)
  • Petitioner: Retired or former employee
  • 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: 552 U.S. 248
  • 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: 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