InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

County of Imperial, California, et al. v. Munoz et al.

449 U.S. 54 · No. 79-1003 · 1980 term · Burger Court

Decided Dec 2, 1980 · argued Oct 15, 1980

Judicial power · Comity primarily removal cases, civil procedure

Majority opinion: Potter Stewart

The voteMajorityDissent

6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent

3 dissents (6–3)

Vacated and remanded. County of Imperial, California, et al. won.

What this ruling means

Vacated and remanded: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, wiping it out without necessarily saying the result was wrong, and sent the case back for that court to decide again under the right legal standard.

County of Imperial, California, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Wikipedia has no article on this case, so there is no summary.

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1980 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianMarshallBrennanStevensBlackmunWhiteStewartPowellBurgerRehnquist

Majority(6)

Dissent(3)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
County of Imperial, California, et al.County government or county governmental unit, except school district (California)
Respondent
Munoz et al.Foreign (non-American) nongovernmental entity
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
28 U.S.C. § 2283
Kind of law
Infrequently litigated statutes
Decided by
Statutory construction
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Dec 2, 1980DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: vacated and remanded. County of Imperial, California, et al. won.
  2. Oct 15, 1980ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California Southern U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

49 other argued cases since 1946 on comity primarily removal cases, civil procedure, newest first.

  1. BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore141 S. Ct. 1532May 17, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1532Judicial power7–18–1 band
  2. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson139 S. Ct. 1743May 28, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 1743Judicial power5–45–4 band

  3. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens574 U.S. 81Dec 15, 2014 · 574 U.S. 81Judicial power5–45–4 band

  4. Miss. ex rel. Hood v. Au Optronics Corp.571 U.S. 161Jan 14, 2014 · 571 U.S. 161Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  5. Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs571 U.S. 69Dec 10, 2013 · 571 U.S. 69Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  6. Mary Anna Rivet, et al. v. Regions Bank of Louisiana et al.522 U.S. 470Feb 24, 1998 · 522 U.S. 470Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  7. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., et al. v. Lawrence Epstein, et al.516 U.S. 367Feb 27, 1996 · 516 U.S. 367Judicial power6–36–3 band
  8. William Daubert, et ux., etc., et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Landmark · Other509 U.S. 579Jun 28, 1993 · 509 U.S. 579Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  9. R. Gordon Darby, et al. v. Henry G. Cisneros, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, et al.509 U.S. 137Jun 21, 1993 · 509 U.S. 137Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  10. William McNeil v. United States508 U.S. 106May 17, 1993 · 508 U.S. 106Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  11. John J. McCarthy v. Larry Madigan, et al.503 U.S. 140Mar 4, 1992 · 503 U.S. 140Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  12. Franchise Tax Board of California et al. v. Alcan Aluminium Ltd. et al.493 U.S. 331Jan 10, 1990 · 493 U.S. 331Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  13. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of the City of New Orleans et al.491 U.S. 350Jun 19, 1989 · 491 U.S. 350Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  14. Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, As Receiver of Firstsouth, F. A.489 U.S. 561Mar 21, 1989 · 489 U.S. 561Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  15. Deakins et al. v. Monaghan et al.484 U.S. 193Jan 12, 1988 · 484 U.S. 193Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
  16. Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc.481 U.S. 1Apr 6, 1987 · 481 U.S. 1Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  17. Iowa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Laplante et al.480 U.S. 9Feb 24, 1987 · 480 U.S. 9Judicial power8–18–1 band
  18. Parsons Steel, Inc., et al. v. First Alabama Bank et al.474 U.S. 518Jan 27, 1986 · 474 U.S. 518Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  19. Marrese et al. v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons470 U.S. 373Mar 4, 1985 · 470 U.S. 373Judicial power7–0Unanimous band
  20. Arizona et al. v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona et al.463 U.S. 545Jul 1, 1983 · 463 U.S. 545Judicial power6–36–3 band
  21. California et al. v. Grace Brethren Church et al.457 U.S. 393Jun 18, 1982 · 457 U.S. 393Judicial power7–27–2 band
  22. Fair Assessment in Real Estate Association, Inc., et al. v. McNary et al.454 U.S. 100Dec 1, 1981 · 454 U.S. 100Judicial power5–45–4 band
  23. Rosewell, Treasurer of Cook County, Illinois, et al. v. Lasalle National Bank, Trustee450 U.S. 503Mar 24, 1981 · 450 U.S. 503Judicial power5–45–4 band
  24. Moore et al. v. Sims et ux.442 U.S. 415Jun 11, 1979 · 442 U.S. 415Judicial power5–45–4 band
  25. Trainor, Director, Illinois Department of Public Aid, et al. v. Hernandez et ux.431 U.S. 434May 31, 1977 · 431 U.S. 434Judicial power5–45–4 band
  26. Tully et al. v. Griffin, Inc.429 U.S. 68Nov 9, 1976 · 429 U.S. 68Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  27. Carey, Governor of New York, et al. v. Sugar et al.425 U.S. 73Mar 24, 1976 · 425 U.S. 73Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  28. Colorado River Water Conservation District et al. v. United StatesLandmark · Other424 U.S. 800Mar 24, 1976 · 424 U.S. 800Judicial power6–36–3 band
  29. Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., et al.422 U.S. 922Jun 30, 1975 · 422 U.S. 922Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  30. Lehman Brothers v. Schein et al.416 U.S. 386Apr 29, 1974 · 416 U.S. 386Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  31. Granny Goose Foods, Inc., et al. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70 of Alameda County, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America415 U.S. 423Mar 4, 1974 · 415 U.S. 423Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  32. Gibson et al. v. Berryhill et al.411 U.S. 564May 7, 1973 · 411 U.S. 564Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  33. Grubbs, dba T. R. Grubbs Tire & Appliance v. General Electric Credit Corp.405 U.S. 699Apr 18, 1972 · 405 U.S. 699Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  34. Askew, Governor of Florida, et al. v. Hargrave et al.401 U.S. 476Mar 8, 1971 · 401 U.S. 476Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  35. Reetz, Commissioner of Fish and Game of Alaska, et al. v. Bozanich et al.397 U.S. 82Feb 25, 1970 · 397 U.S. 82Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
  36. Willingham, Warden, et al. v. Morgan395 U.S. 402Jun 9, 1969 · 395 U.S. 402Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
  37. England et al. v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners et al.375 U.S. 411Jan 13, 1964 · 375 U.S. 411Judicial power8–18–1 band
  38. Best et al. v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co. et al.371 U.S. 334Jan 14, 1963 · 371 U.S. 334Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  39. United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Ideal Cement Co. et al.369 U.S. 134Mar 19, 1962 · 369 U.S. 134Judicial power6–27–2 band

  40. Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve, v. Egan, Governor of Alaska, et al.363 U.S. 555Jun 20, 1960 · 363 U.S. 555Judicial power6–36–3 band
  41. Martin, Successor to Lawler, Secretary of Highways of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Creasy et al.360 U.S. 219Jun 8, 1959 · 360 U.S. 219Judicial power8–18–1 band
  42. County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co. et al.360 U.S. 185Jun 8, 1959 · 360 U.S. 185Judicial power5–45–4 band
  43. Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux360 U.S. 25Jun 8, 1959 · 360 U.S. 25Judicial power6–36–3 band
  44. Leiter Minerals, Inc., v. United States et al.352 U.S. 220Jan 14, 1957 · 352 U.S. 220Judicial power8–18–1 band
  45. Doud et al., Doing Business As Bondified Systems, et al. v. Hodge, Auditor of Public Accounts of Illinois, et al.350 U.S. 485Mar 26, 1956 · 350 U.S. 485Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  46. Public Utilities Commission of California et al. v. United Air Lines, Inc. et al.346 U.S. 402Nov 30, 1953 · 346 U.S. 402Judicial power6–27–2 band
  47. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Redwine, State Revenue Commissioner342 U.S. 299Jan 28, 1952 · 342 U.S. 299Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  48. Alabama Public Service Commission et al. v. Southern Railway Co.341 U.S. 363May 21, 1951 · 341 U.S. 363Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  49. Alabama Public Service Commission et al. v. Southern Railway Co.341 U.S. 341May 21, 1951 · 341 U.S. 341Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia and the argument audio on Oyez. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.