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

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. STOWE SPINNING CO. ET AL. (1949)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. STOWE SPINNING CO. ET AL.
Term: 1948
Important Dates
Argued: December 9, 1948
Decided: February 28, 1949
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
6-3
Majority
Hugo BlackHarold BurtonWilliam DouglasFelix FrankfurterFrank MurphyWiley Rutledge
Dissenting
Robert JacksonStanley ReedFrederick Vinson

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. STOWE SPINNING CO. ET AL. is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 28, 1949. The case was argued before the court on December 9, 1948.

In a 6-3 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, Fourth Circuit.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1940s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Vinson Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Due Process - Due process: takings clause, or other non-constitutional governmental taking of property
  • 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: 336 U.S. 226
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Cert
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: Frederick Vinson
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: Frank Murphy

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