Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. OCHOA FERTILIZER CORP. et al. (1961)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. OCHOA FERTILIZER CORP. et al.
Term: 1961
Important Dates
Argued: November 16, 1961
Decided: December 18, 1961
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
8-1
Majority
Hugo BlackWilliam BrennanTom ClarkFelix FrankfurterJohn Harlan IIPotter StewartEarl WarrenCharles Whittaker
Dissenting
William Douglas

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. OCHOA FERTILIZER CORP. et al. is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on December 18, 1961. The case was argued before the court on November 16, 1961.

In an 8-1 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, First Circuit.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1960s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Warren Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Judicial Power - Judicial review of administrative agency's or administrative official's actions and procedures
  • 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: 368 U.S. 318
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Cert
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: Earl Warren
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: William Brennan

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