Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.
From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
| Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||
| Argued November 30, 1994 Decided April 18, 1995 |
|||||
| Full case name | Ed Plaut, et ux., et al., petitioners v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., et al. | ||||
| Citations | 514 U.S. 211 (more) | ||||
| Holding | |||||
| A statute that requires federal courts to reopen final judgments entered before its enactment is unconstitutional. | |||||
| Court membership | |||||
|
|||||
| Case opinions | |||||
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas | ||||
| Concurrence | Breyer | ||||
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Ginsburg | ||||
| Laws applied | |||||
| U.S. Const. art. III | |||||
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress may not retroactively require federal courts to reopen final judgments. Writing for the Court, Justice Scalia asserted that such action amounted to an unauthorized encroachment by Congress upon the powers of the judiciary and therefore violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
See also
- United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 514
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
References
- ↑ 514 U.S. 211 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
<templatestyles src="Asbox/styles.css"></templatestyles>
|
This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
