Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION v. LTV CORPORATION et al. (1990)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION v. LTV CORPORATION et al.
Term: 1989
Important Dates
Argued: February 27, 1990
Decided: June 18, 1990
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
8-1
Majority
Harry BlackmunWilliam BrennanAnthony KennedyThurgood MarshallWilliam RehnquistAntonin Scalia
Concurring
Sandra Day O'ConnorByron White
Dissenting
John Paul Stevens

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION v. LTV CORPORATION et al. is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 18, 1990. The case was argued before the court on February 27, 1990.

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 New York Southern U.S. District Court.

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: Economic Activity - Employee Retirement Income Security Act (cf. union trust funds)
  • Petitioner: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
  • 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: 496 U.S. 633
  • 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: Harry Blackmun

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