Culley v. Marshall
601 U.S. 377 · Decided May 9, 2024 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Culley v. Marshall was decided on May 9, 2024 by a vote of 6–3. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, takings clause” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 601 U.S. 377 · 144 S. Ct. 1142 · 218 L. Ed. 2d 372 · 2024 U.S. LEXIS 1979
- Docket number
- 22-585
- Decided
- May 9, 2024
- Argued
- October 30, 2023
- Court era
- Roberts Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority opinion
- Brett M. Kavanaugh
- Opinion assigned by
- John G. Roberts Jr.
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, takings clause
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (due process and equal protection)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Concurrence | |
| Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Sonia Sotomayor | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Elena Kagan | Dissent | |
| Justice Neil M. Gorsuch | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Amy Coney Barrett | Majority | |
| Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson | Dissent |
Full case caption
Culley v. Marshall
SCDB identifiers: case 2023-007, docket 2023-007-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- Devillier v. Texas
- Sheetz v. County of El Dorado
- Tyler v. Hennepin CountyLaw held unconstitutional
- Pung v. Isabella County
- Penneast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey
- Pakdel v. City and County of San FranciscoLaw held unconstitutional
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error