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

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. CURTIN MATHESON SCIENTIFIC, INC. (1990)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. CURTIN MATHESON SCIENTIFIC, INC.
Term: 1989
Important Dates
Argued: December 4, 1989
Decided: April 17, 1990
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
5-4
Majority
William BrennanThurgood MarshallJohn Paul StevensByron White
Concurring
William Rehnquist
Dissenting
Harry BlackmunAnthony KennedySandra Day O'ConnorAntonin Scalia

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. CURTIN MATHESON SCIENTIFIC, INC. is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 17, 1990. The case was argued before the court on December 4, 1989.

In a 5-4 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 U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

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: 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: 494 U.S. 775
  • 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: 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 liberal.

See also

External links

Footnotes