Know your vote. Take a look at your sample ballot now!

TORRES v. OAKLAND SCAVENGER CO. et al. (1988)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
TORRES v. OAKLAND SCAVENGER CO. et al.
Term: 1987
Important Dates
Argued: February 23, 1988
Decided: June 24, 1988
Outcome
Affirmed (includes modified)
Vote
8-1
Majority
Harry BlackmunAnthony KennedyThurgood MarshallSandra Day O'ConnorWilliam RehnquistJohn Paul StevensByron White
Concurring
Antonin Scalia
Dissenting
William Brennan

TORRES v. OAKLAND SCAVENGER CO. et al. is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 24, 1988. The case was argued before the court on February 23, 1988.

In an 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court. The case originated from the California Northern 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: Judicial Power - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure including Supreme Court Rules, application of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure in civil litigation, Circuit Court Rules, and state rules and admiralty rules
  • Petitioner: Racial or ethnic minority employee or job applicant
  • 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: 487 U.S. 312
  • 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 conservative.

See also

External links

Footnotes