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

PILLSBURY ET AL., DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS, v. UNITED ENGINEERING CO. ET AL. (1952)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
PILLSBURY ET AL., DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS, v. UNITED ENGINEERING CO. ET AL.
Term: 1951
Important Dates
Argued: December 6, 1951
Decided: January 2, 1952
Outcome
Affirmed (includes modified)
Vote
6-3
Majority
Tom ClarkFelix FrankfurterRobert JacksonSherman MintonStanley ReedFrederick Vinson
Dissenting
Hugo BlackHarold BurtonWilliam Douglas

PILLSBURY ET AL., DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS, v. UNITED ENGINEERING CO. ET AL. is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 2, 1952. The case was argued before the court on December 6, 1951.

In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court. The case originated from the California California Northern U.S. District Court.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1950s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Vinson Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Economic Activity - Election of remedies: legal remedies available to injured persons or things
  • Petitioner: U.S. Employees' Compensation Commission, or Commissioner
  • 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: 342 U.S. 197
  • 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: Sherman Minton

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