United States v. Sperry Corporation
493 U.S. 52 · Decided November 28, 1989 · 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
United States v. Sperry Corporation was decided on November 28, 1989 unanimously (9–0). The Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case. Justice Byron R. White 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
- 493 U.S. 52 · 110 S. Ct. 387 · 107 L. Ed. 2d 290 · 1989 U.S. LEXIS 5694
- Docket number
- 88-952
- Decided
- November 28, 1989
- Argued
- October 10, 1989
- Court era
- Rehnquist Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 9–0 (unanimous)
- Majority opinion
- Byron R. White
- Opinion assigned by
- William H. Rehnquist
- How the case arrived
- Appeal
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, takings clause
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Majority | |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Majority | |
| Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Majority | |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Majority | |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Majority | |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority |
Full case caption
United States v. Sperry Corporation et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 1989-007, docket 1989-007-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- J. Paul Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Commission
- Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch
- Richard Pennell and Tri-County Apartment House Owners Association v. City of San Jose and City Council of San Jose
- John K. Yee v. City of Escondido
- Nollan et Ux. v. California Coastal Commission
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los AngelesLaw held unconstitutional
Cases on the same legal provision: Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Agins et Ux. v. City of Tiburon
- Gurley v. Rhoden
- City of Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp.
- United States v. Fuller et Ux.
- United States v. Grand River Dam Authority
- General Box Co. v. United States
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- J. Paul Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Commission
- Washington v. Walter Harper
- Burnham v. Superior Court of California
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