Constitutional law class 29
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 13

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 42 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29. Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008 . Adkins v. Children’s Hospital. Majority by: Sutherland Joined by: McKenna, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Butler Dissent by: Taft Joined by: Sanford Dissent by: Holmes Brandeis did not participate.

Download Presentation

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Constitutional law class 29

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29

Economic Substantive Due Process Part II

March 19, 2008


Adkins v children s hospital

Adkins v. Children’s Hospital

  • Majority by: SutherlandJoined by: McKenna, Van Devanter, McReynolds, ButlerDissent by: TaftJoined by: SanfordDissent by: Holmes

  • Brandeis did not participate


Weaver v palmer bros co 1926 c p 527 one

Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co. (1926) [C p. 527]One

  • Majority opinion by Butler

  • (joined by the other 3 Horsemen: Sutherland, McReynolds, Van Devanter as well as Sanford)

  • Dissent by Holmes, joined by Brandeis and Stone


Justices born on st paddy s day

Justices Born on St. Paddy’s Day

  • Roger Brooke Taney

  • Pierce Butler

  • Near misses: Ruth Bader Ginsburg (3/15), Antonin Scalia (3/11), Earl Warren (3/19), Sandra Day O’Connor (3/26)


Nebbia v new york 1934 c p 539

Nebbia v. New York (1934) [C p. 539]

Majority by: RobertsJoined by: Hughes, Brandeis, Stone, CardozoDissent by: McReynoldsJoined by: Van Devanter, Sutherland, Butler(the 4 Horsemen)


West coast hotel v parrish 1937 c 541

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) [C . 541]

  • Majority by: HughesJoined by: Brandeis, Stone, Roberts, CardozoDissent by: SutherlandJoined by: Van Devanter, McReynolds, Butler (the 4 Horsemen)


United states v carolene products co 1938 c p 543

United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938) [C p. 543]

  • Majority by: StoneJoined by: Hughes, Brandeis, Roberts, Black (except the part designated "Third")Concurrence by: ButlerDissent by: McReynoldsReed, Cardozo took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.


Williamson v lee optical 1955 c p 545

Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955) [C p. 545]

  • Unanimous

  • Opinion by Douglas (joined by Warren, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Burton, Clark, Minton, Harlan)


Ferguson v skrupa 1963 c p 546

Ferguson v. Skrupa (1963) C p. 546]

  • Unanimous

  • Opinion of the Court by Black

  • Separate Concurrence by Harlan


Bmw of north america v gore 1996 c p 547

BMW of North America v. Gore (1996) [C p. 547]

  • Majority by: StevensJoined by: O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, BreyerConcurrence by: BreyerJoined by: O'Connor, SouterDissent by: ScaliaJoined by: ThomasDissent by: GinsburgJoined by: Rehnquist


State farm mutual automobile ins co v campbell 2003 c p 551

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell (2003) [C p. 551]

  • 6-3

  • Majority opinion by Kennedy joined by Rehnquist, Souter, O’Connor, Stevens, Breyer

  • Dissents by Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg


Philip morris usa v williams 2007 supp 83

Philip Morris USA v. Williams (2007) [Supp. 83]

  • Opinion of the Court by Breyer joined by Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, and Souter

  • Dissent by Stevens

  • Dissent by Thomas

  • Dissent by Ginsburg, joined by Scalia and Thomas


Exxon shipping co v baker

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker

  • Oral argument: February 27, 2008 (granted expanded oral argument of 45 minutes per side – ie. an extra 15 minutes each)

  • Decision expected by summer

  • The issue is not the constitutionality under due process, rather under maritime law


  • Login