Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.
532 U.S. 424 · No. 99-2035 · 2000 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided May 14, 2001 · argued Feb 26, 2001
Economic activity · Liability, punitive damages
Majority opinion: John Stevens
The voteMajorityDissent
8–18 in the majority, 1 in dissent
1 dissent (8–1)
Vacated and remanded. Cooper Industries, Inc. 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.
Cooper Industries, Inc. 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.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the standard of review that Federal Appeal Courts should use when examining punitive damages awards.
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 2000 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 1 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(8)
John StevensWrote the majority opinion
Antonin ScaliaWrote a concurrence
Clarence ThomasWrote a concurrence
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
David SouterJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(1)
Ruth GinsburgWrote a dissent
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
- Cooper Industries, Inc.Manufacturer
- Respondent
- Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.Manufacturer
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal courts were unsure how to apply the law
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.
- Provision
- Fifth Amendment (due process)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
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.
- May 14, 2001DecidedDecided · Decided 8–1: vacated and remanded. Cooper Industries, Inc. won.
- Feb 26, 2001ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal courts were unsure how to apply the law.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Oregon 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
12 other argued cases since 1946 on liability, punitive damages, newest first.
- The Dutra Group v. Batterton139 S. Ct. 2275Jun 24, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 2275Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Paroline v. United States572 U.S. 434Apr 23, 2014 · 572 U.S. 434Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc., et al. v. Edgar L. Townsend557 U.S. 404Jun 25, 2009 · 557 U.S. 404Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker554 U.S. 471Jun 26, 2008 · 554 U.S. 471Economic activity5–36–3 band
- Philip Morris USA v. Mayola Williams, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jesse D. Williams, Deceased549 U.S. 346Feb 20, 2007 · 549 U.S. 346Economic activity5–45–4 band
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Inez Preece Campbell and Matthew C. Barneck, Special Administrator and Personal Representative of the Estate of Curtis B. Campbell538 U.S. 408Apr 7, 2003 · 538 U.S. 408Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Kay Barnes, etc., et al. v. Jeffrey Gorman536 U.S. 181Jun 17, 2002 · 536 U.S. 181Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- BMW of North America, Inc. v. Ira Gore, Jr.517 U.S. 559May 20, 1996 · 517 U.S. 559Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Honda Motor Co., Ltd., et al. v. Karl L. Oberg512 U.S. 415Jun 24, 1994 · 512 U.S. 415Economic activity7–27–2 band
- Txo Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., et al.509 U.S. 443Jun 25, 1993 · 509 U.S. 443Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Cleopatra Haslip et al.499 U.S. 1Mar 4, 1991 · 499 U.S. 1Economic activity7–18–1 band
- Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc., et al. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., et al.492 U.S. 257Jun 26, 1989 · 492 U.S. 257Economic 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.