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

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. BILDISCO & BILDISCO, DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION, et al. (1984)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. BILDISCO & BILDISCO, DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION, et al.
Term: 1983
Important Dates
Argued: October 11, 1983
Decided: February 22, 1984
Outcome
Affirmed (includes modified)
Vote
5-4
Majority
Warren BurgerSandra Day O'ConnorLewis PowellWilliam RehnquistJohn Paul Stevens
Dissenting
Harry BlackmunWilliam BrennanThurgood MarshallByron White

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. BILDISCO & BILDISCO, DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION, et al. is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 22, 1984. The case was argued before the court on October 11, 1983.

In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court. The case originated from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

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: Unions - Labor-management disputes: bargaining
  • Petitioner: National Labor Relations Board, or regional office or officer
  • 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: 465 U.S. 513
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Cert
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: Warren Burger
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: William Rehnquist

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