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

WILLIAM B. CULBERTSON, APPELLANT, v. THE STEAMER SOUTHERN BELLE; HENRY B. SHAW, WILLIAM M. SHAW, ELAM BOWMAN, SIDNEY A. LACOSTE, AND JOHN DE SEBASTIAN, CLAIMANTS (1856)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
WILLIAM B. CULBERTSON, APPELLANT, v. THE STEAMER SOUTHERN BELLE; HENRY B. SHAW, WILLIAM M. SHAW, ELAM BOWMAN, SIDNEY A. LACOSTE, AND JOHN DE SEBASTIAN, CLAIMANTS
Term: 1855
Important Dates
Argued: April 30, 1856
Decided: May 12, 1856
Outcome
Reversed
Vote
9-0
Majority
John Archibald CampbellJohn CatronBenjamin Robbins CurtisPeter Vivian DanielRobert Cooper GrierJohn McLeanSamuel NelsonRoger Brooke TaneyJames Moore Wayne

WILLIAM B. CULBERTSON, APPELLANT, v. THE STEAMER SOUTHERN BELLE; HENRY B. SHAW, WILLIAM M. SHAW, ELAM BOWMAN, SIDNEY A. LACOSTE, AND JOHN DE SEBASTIAN, CLAIMANTS is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on May 12, 1856. The case was argued before the court on April 30, 1856.

In a 9-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower court. The case originated from the Louisiana U.S. District Court.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1850s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Taney Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Economic Activity - Liability, other than as in sufficiency of evidence, election of remedies, punitive damages
  • Petitioner: Water transportation, stevedore
  • Petitioner state: Unknown
  • Respondent type: Water transportation, stevedore
  • Respondent state: Unknown
  • Citation: 59 U.S. 584
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Appeal
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: Roger Brooke Taney
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: John McLean

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