InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard

486 U.S. 517 · No. 87-336 · 1987 term · Rehnquist Court

Decided Jun 13, 1988 · argued Mar 21, 1988

Judicial power · Judicial administration: review of non-final order

Majority opinion: Thurgood Marshall

The voteMajority

9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent

No dissent (9–0)

Affirmed. Van Cauwenberghe lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

Van Cauwenberghe 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.

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 1987 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianMarshallBrennanBlackmunStevensWhiteKennedyO'ConnorScaliaRehnquist

Majority(9)

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.

Report a correction

The parties

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

Petitioner
Van CauwenbergheForeign (non-American) nongovernmental entity
Respondent
BiardForeign (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. § 1291
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. Jun 13, 1988DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. Van Cauwenberghe lost.
  2. Mar 21, 1988ArguedArgued · 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 Central 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

44 other argued cases since 1946 on judicial administration: review of non-final order, newest first.

  1. Microsoft Corp. v. Baker137 S. Ct. 1702Jun 12, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1702Judicial power8–0Unanimous band

  2. United States v. Jacob Denedo556 U.S. 904Jun 8, 2009 · 556 U.S. 904Judicial power5–45–4 band

  3. Arthur Andersen LLP, et al. v. Wayne Carlisle et al.556 U.S. 624May 4, 2009 · 556 U.S. 624Judicial power6–36–3 band

  4. Richard Will, et al. v. Susan Hallock, et al.546 U.S. 345Jan 18, 2006 · 546 U.S. 345Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  5. Jay Shawn Johnson v. California541 U.S. 428May 3, 2004 · 541 U.S. 428Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  6. Florida v. Robert A. Thomas532 U.S. 774Jun 4, 2001 · 532 U.S. 774Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  7. Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama and Green Tree Financial Corporation v. Larketta Randolph531 U.S. 79Dec 11, 2000 · 531 U.S. 79Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  8. Teresa L. Cunningham v. Hamilton County, Ohio527 U.S. 198Jun 14, 1999 · 527 U.S. 198Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  9. Sandra K. Forney v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security524 U.S. 266Jun 15, 1998 · 524 U.S. 266Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  10. Melvin Jefferson, Individually and As Administrator of the Estate of Alberta K. Jefferson, Deceased, et al. v. City of Tarrant, Alabama522 U.S. 75Dec 9, 1997 · 522 U.S. 75Judicial power8–18–1 band
  11. Brett C. Kimberlin v. J. Michael Quinlan et al.515 U.S. 321Jun 12, 1995 · 515 U.S. 321Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  12. Tyson Johnson, et al. v. Houston Jones515 U.S. 304Jun 12, 1995 · 515 U.S. 304Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  13. Digital Equipment Corporation v. Desktop Direct, Inc.511 U.S. 863Jun 6, 1994 · 511 U.S. 863Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  14. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.506 U.S. 139Jan 12, 1993 · 506 U.S. 139Judicial power8–18–1 band
  15. Connecticut National Bank v. Thomas M. Germain, Trustee for the Estate of O'Sullivan's Fuel Oil Co., Inc.503 U.S. 249Mar 9, 1992 · 503 U.S. 249Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  16. Zakhar Melkonyan v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services501 U.S. 89Jun 10, 1991 · 501 U.S. 89Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  17. Firstier Mortgage Company, aka Realbanc, Inc. v. Investors Mortgage Insurance Company498 U.S. 269Jan 15, 1991 · 498 U.S. 269Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  18. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Marilyn Finkelstein496 U.S. 617Jun 18, 1990 · 496 U.S. 617Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  19. Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser et al.490 U.S. 495May 22, 1989 · 490 U.S. 495Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  20. Midland Asphalt Corp. et al. v. United States489 U.S. 794Mar 28, 1989 · 489 U.S. 794Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  21. Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.486 U.S. 196May 23, 1988 · 486 U.S. 196Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  22. Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation v. Mayacamas Corporation485 U.S. 271Mar 22, 1988 · 485 U.S. 271Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
  23. Stringfellow et al. v. Concerned Neighbors in Action et al.480 U.S. 370Mar 9, 1987 · 480 U.S. 370Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  24. Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller, an Infant, by and Through Koller et ux., Her Natural Guardians, et al.472 U.S. 424Jun 17, 1985 · 472 U.S. 424Judicial power8–18–1 band

  25. Flanagan et al. v. United States465 U.S. 259Feb 21, 1984 · 465 U.S. 259Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  26. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.460 U.S. 1Feb 23, 1983 · 460 U.S. 1Judicial power6–36–3 band
  27. Gillette Co. v. Miner459 U.S. 86Dec 6, 1982 · 459 U.S. 86Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  28. Carson et al. v. American Brands, Inc., T/A American Tobacco Co., et al.450 U.S. 79Feb 25, 1981 · 450 U.S. 79Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  29. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord449 U.S. 368Jan 13, 1981 · 449 U.S. 368Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  30. Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co.437 U.S. 478Jun 21, 1978 · 437 U.S. 478Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  31. Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay et al.437 U.S. 463Jun 21, 1978 · 437 U.S. 463Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  32. Mitchell et al. v. Donovan, Secretary of State of Minnesota, et al.398 U.S. 427Jun 15, 1970 · 398 U.S. 427Judicial power7–18–1 band
  33. Goldstein, aka Pietraru, et al. v. Cox et al.396 U.S. 471Jan 26, 1970 · 396 U.S. 471Judicial power6–27–2 band
  34. Banks v. California395 U.S. 708Jun 16, 1969 · 395 U.S. 708Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
  35. Switzerland Cheese Association, Inc., et al. v. E. Horne's Market, Inc.385 U.S. 23Nov 7, 1966 · 385 U.S. 23Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  36. Arceneaux v. Louisiana376 U.S. 336Mar 9, 1964 · 376 U.S. 336Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  37. Parr v. United States351 U.S. 513Jun 11, 1956 · 351 U.S. 513Judicial power5–45–4 band
  38. Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger348 U.S. 176Jan 10, 1955 · 348 U.S. 176Judicial power6–27–2 band
  39. Montgomery Building & Construction Trades Council et al. v. Ledbetter Erection Co., Inc.344 U.S. 178Dec 8, 1952 · 344 U.S. 178Judicial power7–27–2 band
  40. Dickinson v. Petroleum Conversion Corp.338 U.S. 507Jan 16, 1950 · 338 U.S. 507Judicial power7–18–1 band
  41. City of Morgantown v. Royal Insurance Co., Ltd.337 U.S. 254Jun 6, 1949 · 337 U.S. 254Judicial power7–27–2 band
  42. Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma et al.334 U.S. 62May 3, 1948 · 334 U.S. 62Judicial power5–45–4 band
  43. Gospel Army v. Los Angeles et al.331 U.S. 543Jun 9, 1947 · 331 U.S. 543Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  44. McCULLOUGH v. Kammerer Corporation et al.331 U.S. 96Apr 28, 1947 · 331 U.S. 96Judicial 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.