It’s the 12 Days of Ballotpedia! Your gift powers the trusted, unbiased information voters need heading into 2026. Donate now!

MATHER v. RILLSTON (1895)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 14:59, 23 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
MATHER v. RILLSTON
Term: 1894
Important Dates
Argued: January 22, 1895
Decided: March 4, 1895
Outcome
Affirmed (includes modified)
Vote
8-0
Majority
David Josiah BrewerHenry Billings BrownStephen Johnson FieldMelville Weston FullerHorace GrayJohn Marshall HarlanGeorge ShirasEdward Douglass White

MATHER v. RILLSTON is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 4, 1895. The case was argued before the court on January 22, 1895.

In an 8-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court. The case originated from the Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1890s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Fuller 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: Employee, or job applicant, including beneficiaries of
  • 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: 156 U.S. 391
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Writ of error
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: Melville Weston Fuller
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: Stephen Johnson Field

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