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

VILLA et al. v. VAN SCHAICK, SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE OF NEW YORK (1936)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
VILLA et al. v. VAN SCHAICK, SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE OF NEW YORK
Term: 1936
Important Dates
Argued: October 23, 1936
Decided: December 7, 1936
Outcome
Vacated and remanded
Vote
8-0
Majority
Louis Dembitz BrandeisPierce ButlerBenjamin Nathan CardozoCharles Evans HughesJames Clark McReynoldsOwen Josephus RobertsGeorge SutherlandWillis Van Devanter

VILLA et al. v. VAN SCHAICK, SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE OF NEW YORK is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on December 7, 1936. The case was argued before the court on October 23, 1936.

In an 8-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated 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 State Supreme Court.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1930s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Hughes Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Judicial Power - judicial administration: Supreme Court jurisdiction or authority on appeal or writ of error, from highest state court
  • Petitioner: Owner, landlord, or claimant to ownership, fee interest, or possession of land as well as chattels
  • Petitioner state: Unknown
  • Respondent type: Governmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact
  • Respondent state: New York
  • Citation: 299 U.S. 152
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Appeal
  • What type of decision was made: Per curiam (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: Charles Evans Hughes
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: Unknown

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