Armstrong v. Manzo et Ux.
380 U.S. 545 · Decided April 27, 1965 · 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
Armstrong v. Manzo et Ux. was decided on April 27, 1965 unanimously (9–0). The Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case. Justice Potter Stewart wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, hearing or notice” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 380 U.S. 545 · 85 S. Ct. 1187 · 14 L. Ed. 2d 62 · 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1348
- Docket number
- 149
- Decided
- April 27, 1965
- Argued
- March 9, 1965
- Court era
- Warren 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
- Potter Stewart
- Opinion assigned by
- Earl Warren
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, hearing or notice
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Hugo L. Black | Majority | |
| Justice William O. Douglas | Majority | |
| Justice Tom C. Clark | Majority | |
| Chief Justice Earl Warren | Majority | |
| Justice John M. Harlan II | Majority | |
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Potter Stewart | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | |
| Justice Arthur J. Goldberg | Majority |
Full case caption
Armstrong v. Manzo et Ux.
SCDB identifiers: case 1964-082, docket 1964-082-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, hearing or notice”
- Pate v. Robinson
- Westbrook v. Arizona
- Willner v. Committee on Character and FitnessLaw held unconstitutional
- Schroeder v. City of New YorkLaw held unconstitutional
- In re Green
- Oyler v. Boles
Cases on the same legal provision: Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- American Oil Co. v. NeillLaw held unconstitutional
- Holt v. Virginia
- Griswold v. ConnecticutLaw held unconstitutional
- Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham
- Giaccio v. PennsylvaniaLaw held unconstitutional
- Brown v. Louisiana
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