East River Steamship Corp. et al. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc.
The Court held that a manufacturer cannot be held liable in tort for purely economic losses resulting from a defective product that causes damage only to itself and not to persons or other property.
476 U.S. 858 · No. 84-1726 · 1985 term · Burger Court
Decided Jun 16, 1986 · argued Jan 21, 1986
Economic activity · Liability, other than as in sufficiency of evidence, election of remedies, punitive damages
Majority opinion: Harry Blackmun
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Affirmed. East River Steamship Corp. et al. lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
East River Steamship Corp. et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give 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.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc., 476 U.S. 858 (1986), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the scope of products liability under maritime law. The Court held that a manufacturer cannot be held liable in tort for purely economic losses resulting from a defective product that causes damage only to itself and not to persons or other property.
The case arose when East River Steamship Corporation and other charterers of oil supertankers sued Transamerica Delaval Inc., the manufacturer of turbine generators installed on the ships. The turbines malfunctioned due to design and manufacturing defects, resulting in repair costs and lost profits. The plaintiffs brought claims based on strict products liability and negligence, arguing that Delaval should be held liable for the economic losses caused by the defective turbines.
The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that under maritime law, when a product injures only itself and causes no personal injury or damage to other property, the proper remedy lies in contract law (such as warranty), not tort. The Court emphasized the distinction between tort and contract remedies, finding that expanding tort liability to cover economic losses would disrupt commercial expectations. This case established an important precedent limiting tort recovery in product liability cases under maritime law.
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.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1985 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Harry BlackmunWrote the majority opinion
Thurgood MarshallJoined the majority
William BrennanJoined the majority
John StevensJoined the majority
Lewis PowellJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
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.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- East River Steamship Corp. et al.Water transportation, stevedore
- Respondent
- Transamerica Delaval Inc.Manufacturer
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
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.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Decided by
- Federal common law
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.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 16, 1986DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. East River Steamship Corp. et al. lost.
- Jan 21, 1986ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: affirmed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New Jersey 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.
Other decisions on the same issue
119 other argued cases since 1946 on liability, other than as in sufficiency of evidence, election of remedies, punitive damages, newest first.
- Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos145 S. Ct. 1556Jun 5, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 1556Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn145 S. Ct. 931Apr 2, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 931Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Yegiazaryan v. Smagin599 U.S. 533Jun 22, 2023 · 599 U.S. 533Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Twitter v. Taamneh598 U.S. 471May 18, 2023 · 598 U.S. 471Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Gonzalez v. Google LLC598 U.S. 617May 18, 2023 · 598 U.S. 617Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Citgo Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd.140 S. Ct. 1081Mar 30, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 1081Economic activity7–27–2 band
- Honeycutt v. United States137 S. Ct. 1626Jun 5, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1626Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Asid Mohamad, Individually and for the Estate of Azzam Rahim, Deceased, et al., Petitioners v. Palestinian Authority et al.566 U.S. 449Apr 18, 2012 · 566 U.S. 449Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. et al. v. Regal-Beloit Corp. et al.561 U.S. 89Jun 21, 2010 · 561 U.S. 89Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Mohamed Ali Samantar v. Bashe Abdi Yousuf et al.560 U.S. 305Jun 1, 2010 · 560 U.S. 305Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Rockwell International Corp., et al. v. United States et al.549 U.S. 457Mar 27, 2007 · 549 U.S. 457Economic activity6–27–2 band
- Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Timothy Sorrell549 U.S. 158Jan 10, 2007 · 549 U.S. 158Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Joseph Olson, et al.546 U.S. 43Nov 8, 2005 · 546 U.S. 43Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., dba Kirby Engineering, and Allianz Australia Insurance Limited543 U.S. 14Nov 9, 2004 · 543 U.S. 14Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Jose Francisco Sosa v. Humberto Alvarez-Machain et al.542 U.S. 692Jun 29, 2004 · 542 U.S. 692Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Olympic Airways v. Rubina Husain, Individually and As Personal Representative of the Estate of Abid M. Hanson, Deceased, et al.540 U.S. 644Feb 24, 2004 · 540 U.S. 644Economic activity6–27–2 band
- Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security v. Sigmon Coal Company, Inc., et al.534 U.S. 438Feb 19, 2002 · 534 U.S. 438Economic activity6–36–3 band
- James F. Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., etc.531 U.S. 438Feb 21, 2001 · 531 U.S. 438Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Jane M. Roberts, Guardian for Wanda Y. Johnson v. Galen of Virginia, Inc., Formerly dba Humana Hospital University of Louisville, dba University of Louisville Hospital525 U.S. 249Jan 13, 1999 · 525 U.S. 249Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Philomena Dooley, Personal Representative of the Estate of Cecelio Chuapoco, et al. v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd.524 U.S. 116Jun 8, 1998 · 524 U.S. 116Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Hughes Aircraft Company v. United States, ex rel. William J. Schumer520 U.S. 939Jun 16, 1997 · 520 U.S. 939Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Saratoga Fishing Company v. J. M. Martinac & Company and Marco Seattle Inc.520 U.S. 875Jun 2, 1997 · 520 U.S. 875Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Harbor Tug and Barge Company v. John Papai et ux.520 U.S. 548May 12, 1997 · 520 U.S. 548Economic activity6–36–3 band
- John W. Atherton, Jr. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, As Receiver for City Savings, F. S. B.519 U.S. 213Jan 14, 1997 · 519 U.S. 213Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Exxon Company, U. S. A., et al. v. Sofec, Inc., et al.517 U.S. 830Jun 10, 1996 · 517 U.S. 830Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Hiles516 U.S. 400Feb 27, 1996 · 516 U.S. 400Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Bank One Chicago, N. A. v. Midwest Bank & Trust Company516 U.S. 264Jan 17, 1996 · 516 U.S. 264Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Chandris, Inc., et al. v. Antonios Latsis515 U.S. 347Jun 14, 1995 · 515 U.S. 347Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Albert Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., S. A.512 U.S. 92Jun 13, 1994 · 512 U.S. 92Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Boca Grande Club, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Company, Inc.511 U.S. 222Apr 20, 1994 · 511 U.S. 222Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- McDermott, Inc. v. Amclyde and River Don Castings Ltd.511 U.S. 202Apr 20, 1994 · 511 U.S. 202Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Jeffery Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., et al.508 U.S. 429Jun 7, 1993 · 508 U.S. 429Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Bob Reves, et al. v. Ernst & Young507 U.S. 170Mar 3, 1993 · 507 U.S. 170Economic activity7–27–2 band
- Estate of Floyd Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Company, et al.505 U.S. 469Jun 22, 1992 · 505 U.S. 469Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Jeanne Farrey, fka Jeanne Sanderfoot v. Gerald J. Sanderfoot500 U.S. 291May 23, 1991 · 500 U.S. 291Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd et al.499 U.S. 530Apr 17, 1991 · 499 U.S. 530Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- McDermott International, Inc. v. Jon C. Wilander498 U.S. 337Feb 19, 1991 · 498 U.S. 337Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. et al. v. Bonjorno et al.494 U.S. 827Apr 17, 1990 · 494 U.S. 827Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Chan et al. v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd.490 U.S. 122Apr 18, 1989 · 490 U.S. 122Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw486 U.S. 71May 16, 1988 · 486 U.S. 71Economic activity6–18–1 band
- Jersey Shore State Bank v. United States479 U.S. 442Jan 20, 1987 · 479 U.S. 442Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Herb's Welding, Inc., et al. v. Gray et al.470 U.S. 414Mar 18, 1985 · 470 U.S. 414Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Air France v. Saks470 U.S. 392Mar 4, 1985 · 470 U.S. 392Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Johnson et al.467 U.S. 925Jun 26, 1984 · 467 U.S. 925Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp. et al.466 U.S. 243Apr 17, 1984 · 466 U.S. 243Economic activity8–18–1 band
- Morrison-Knudsen Construction Co. et al. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, et al.461 U.S. 624May 24, 1983 · 461 U.S. 624Economic activity8–18–1 band
- Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc.458 U.S. 564Jun 30, 1982 · 458 U.S. 564Economic activity7–27–2 band
- Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. v. de Los Santos et al.451 U.S. 156Apr 21, 1981 · 451 U.S. 156Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Ferri v. Ackerman444 U.S. 193Dec 4, 1979 · 444 U.S. 193Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- P. C. Pfeiffer Co., Inc., et al. v. Ford et al.444 U.S. 69Nov 27, 1979 · 444 U.S. 69Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique443 U.S. 256Jun 27, 1979 · 443 U.S. 256Economic activity5–36–3 band
- Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor v. Rasmussen et al.440 U.S. 29Feb 21, 1979 · 440 U.S. 29Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- J. W. Bateson Co., Inc., et al. v. United States ex rel. Board of Trustees of the National Automatic Sprinkler Industry Pension Fund et al.434 U.S. 586Feb 22, 1978 · 434 U.S. 586Economic activity6–27–2 band
- American Foreign Steamship Co. v. Matise423 U.S. 150Dec 16, 1975 · 423 U.S. 150Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc. v. Brada Miller Freight Systems, Inc., et al.423 U.S. 28Nov 12, 1975 · 423 U.S. 28Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Bangor Punta Operations, Inc., et al. v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Co. et al.417 U.S. 703Jun 19, 1974 · 417 U.S. 703Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Cooper Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. Fritz Kopke, Inc., et al.417 U.S. 106May 28, 1974 · 417 U.S. 106Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Union Oil Co. of California v. the San Jacinto et al.409 U.S. 140Dec 5, 1972 · 409 U.S. 140Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Erie Lackawanna Railroad Co. et al.406 U.S. 340May 15, 1972 · 406 U.S. 340Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp. et al.400 U.S. 494Jan 25, 1971 · 400 U.S. 494Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Federal Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Burnside Shipping Co., Ltd.394 U.S. 404Apr 1, 1969 · 394 U.S. 404Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Edwards v. Pacific Fruit Express Co.390 U.S. 538Apr 8, 1968 · 390 U.S. 538Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, S.P.A. v. Lisi et al.390 U.S. 455Mar 25, 1968 · 390 U.S. 455Economic activity4–45–4 band
- Waldron v. Moore-Mccormack Lines, Inc.386 U.S. 724May 8, 1967 · 386 U.S. 724Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Watkins v. Conway385 U.S. 188Dec 5, 1966 · 385 U.S. 188Economic activity8–18–1 band
- Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Elmore & Stahl377 U.S. 134May 4, 1964 · 377 U.S. 134Economic activity7–27–2 band
- Italia Societa Per Azioni Di Navigazione v. Oregon Stevedoring Co., Inc.376 U.S. 315Mar 9, 1964 · 376 U.S. 315Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Dennis v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.375 U.S. 208Dec 9, 1963 · 375 U.S. 208Economic activity7–27–2 band
- Reed v. the Yaka et al.373 U.S. 410May 27, 1963 · 373 U.S. 410Economic activity7–27–2 band
- Gutierrez v. Waterman Steamship Corp.373 U.S. 206May 13, 1963 · 373 U.S. 206Economic activity8–18–1 band
- Dixilyn Drilling Corp. v. Crescent Towing & Salvage Co.372 U.S. 697Apr 15, 1963 · 372 U.S. 697Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Guzman v. Pichirilo369 U.S. 698May 21, 1962 · 369 U.S. 698Economic activity6–18–1 band
- Vaughan v. Atkinson et al.369 U.S. 527May 14, 1962 · 369 U.S. 527Economic activity5–27–2 band
- Still v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.368 U.S. 35Nov 13, 1961 · 368 U.S. 35Economic activity8–18–1 band
- Waterman Steamship Corp. v. Dugan & McNamara, Inc.364 U.S. 421Nov 21, 1960 · 364 U.S. 421Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc.362 U.S. 539May 16, 1960 · 362 U.S. 539Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Lewis et al., Trustees, v. Benedict Coal Corp.361 U.S. 459Feb 23, 1960 · 361 U.S. 459Economic activity7–18–1 band
- National Labor Relations Board v. Deena Artware, Inc., et al.361 U.S. 398Feb 23, 1960 · 361 U.S. 398Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Braen v. Pfeifer Oil Transportation Co., Inc.361 U.S. 129Dec 14, 1959 · 361 U.S. 129Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co., Inc., v. River Terminals Corp.360 U.S. 411Jun 22, 1959 · 360 U.S. 411Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Robert C. Herd & Co., Inc., v. Krawill Machinery Corp. et al.359 U.S. 297Apr 20, 1959 · 359 U.S. 297Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- United New York and New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Association et al. v. Halecki, Administratrix358 U.S. 613Feb 24, 1959 · 358 U.S. 613Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Crumady v. the Joachim Hendrik Fisser et al.358 U.S. 423Feb 24, 1959 · 358 U.S. 423Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Sinkler v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.356 U.S. 326Apr 28, 1958 · 356 U.S. 326Economic activity7–27–2 band
- Kernan, Administrator, v. American Dredging Co.355 U.S. 426Feb 3, 1958 · 355 U.S. 426Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Baltimore & Ohio Railway Co. v. Jackson353 U.S. 325May 13, 1957 · 353 U.S. 325Economic activity5–45–4 band
- United States for the Benefit of Sherman et al., Trustees, v. Carter et al., Doing Business As Carter Construction Co., et al.353 U.S. 210Apr 29, 1957 · 353 U.S. 210Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Thompson v. Coastal Oil Co.352 U.S. 862Oct 15, 1956 · 352 U.S. 862Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Collins et al. v. American Buslines, Inc. et al.350 U.S. 528Apr 9, 1956 · 350 U.S. 528Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Ryan Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp.350 U.S. 124Jan 9, 1956 · 350 U.S. 124Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Boston Metals Co. v. the Winding Gulf et al.349 U.S. 122May 16, 1955 · 349 U.S. 122Economic activity6–27–2 band
- Bisso, Receiver, v. Inland Waterways Corporation349 U.S. 85May 16, 1955 · 349 U.S. 85Economic activity5–36–3 band
- Boudoin v. Lykes Brothers Steamship Co., Inc.348 U.S. 336Feb 28, 1955 · 348 U.S. 336Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Cox et al., Administrators, et al. v. Roth, Administrator348 U.S. 207Jan 10, 1955 · 348 U.S. 207Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Maryland Casualty Co. et al. v. Cushing et al.347 U.S. 409Apr 12, 1954 · 347 U.S. 409Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Alaska Steamship Co., Inc. v. Petterson347 U.S. 396Apr 5, 1954 · 347 U.S. 396Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Wells, Administratrix, v. Simonds Abrasive Co.345 U.S. 514May 18, 1953 · 345 U.S. 514Economic activity5–36–3 band
- Calmar Steamship Corp. v. Scott et al.345 U.S. 427Apr 27, 1953 · 345 U.S. 427Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Isbrandtsen Company, Inc. v. Johnson343 U.S. 779Jun 9, 1952 · 343 U.S. 779Economic activity8–18–1 band
- First National Bank of Chicago, Executor, v. United Air Lines, Inc.342 U.S. 396Mar 3, 1952 · 342 U.S. 396Economic activity7–27–2 band
- Halcyon Lines et al. v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp.342 U.S. 282Jan 14, 1952 · 342 U.S. 282Economic activity7–27–2 band
- United States v. Fortier et al.342 U.S. 160Dec 11, 1951 · 342 U.S. 160Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Hughes, Administrator, v. Fetter et al.341 U.S. 609Jun 4, 1951 · 341 U.S. 609Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Mosser, Successor Trustee, et al. v. Darrow, Former Trustee, et al.341 U.S. 267May 7, 1951 · 341 U.S. 267Economic activity7–18–1 band
- Warren v. United States340 U.S. 523Feb 26, 1951 · 340 U.S. 523Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Reider v. Thompson, Trustee, Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.339 U.S. 113Mar 13, 1950 · 339 U.S. 113Economic activity6–18–1 band
- Affolder v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Co.339 U.S. 96Mar 13, 1950 · 339 U.S. 96Economic activity5–36–3 band
- Carter v. Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Railway Co.338 U.S. 430Dec 19, 1949 · 338 U.S. 430Economic activity6–27–2 band
- O'Donnell, Administratrix, v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co.338 U.S. 384Dec 12, 1949 · 338 U.S. 384Economic activity4–27–2 band
- Weade et al. v. Dichmann, Wright & Pugh, Inc.337 U.S. 801Jun 27, 1949 · 337 U.S. 801Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. McALLISTER337 U.S. 783Jun 27, 1949 · 337 U.S. 783Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Urie v. Thompson, Trustee337 U.S. 163May 31, 1949 · 337 U.S. 163Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Black Diamond Steamship Corp. v. Robert Stewart & Sons, Ltd. et al.336 U.S. 386Mar 14, 1949 · 336 U.S. 386Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Lawson, Deputy Commissioner, United States Employees' Compensation Commission, v. Suwannee Fruit & Steamship Co. et al.336 U.S. 198Feb 14, 1949 · 336 U.S. 198Economic activity8–18–1 band
- Coray, Ancillary Administrator, v. Southern Pacific Co.335 U.S. 520Jan 3, 1949 · 335 U.S. 520Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Francis et al. v. Southern Pacific Co.333 U.S. 445Mar 15, 1948 · 333 U.S. 445Economic activity6–36–3 band
- United States v. Standard Oil Company of California et al.332 U.S. 301Jun 23, 1947 · 332 U.S. 301Economic activity8–18–1 band
- Caldarola v. Eckert et al., Doing Business As Thor Eckert & Co.332 U.S. 155Jun 23, 1947 · 332 U.S. 155Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Mexican Light & Power Co., Ltd. v. Texas Mexican Railway Co.331 U.S. 731Jun 16, 1947 · 331 U.S. 731Economic activity7–27–2 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.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.