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

D. GRANT PEACOCK v. JACK L. THOMAS (1996)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 21:52, 22 April 2024 by Matt Latourelle (contribs) (historical scotus page set)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
D. GRANT PEACOCK v. JACK L. THOMAS
Term: 1995
Important Dates
Argued: November 6, 1995
Decided: February 21, 1996
Outcome
Reversed
Vote
8-1
Majority
Stephen BreyerRuth Bader GinsburgAnthony KennedySandra Day O'ConnorWilliam RehnquistAntonin ScaliaDavid SouterClarence Thomas
Dissenting
John Paul Stevens

D. GRANT PEACOCK v. JACK L. THOMAS is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 21, 1996. The case was argued before the court on November 6, 1995.

In an 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower court. The case originated from the South Carolina U.S. District Court.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1990s, 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: 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.
  • Petitioner state: Unknown
  • Respondent type: Employee, or job applicant, including beneficiaries of
  • Respondent state: Unknown
  • Citation: 516 U.S. 349
  • 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: Clarence Thomas

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