Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan
333 U.S. 28 · Decided February 2, 1948 · 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
Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan was decided on February 2, 1948 by a vote of 7–2. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Wiley B. Rutledge wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Desegregation (general)” in the Civil Rights area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 333 U.S. 28 · 68 S. Ct. 358 · 92 L. Ed. 2d 455 · 1948 U.S. LEXIS 2721
- Docket number
- 374
- Decided
- February 2, 1948
- Argued
- December 16, 1947
- Court era
- Vinson Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority opinion
- Wiley B. Rutledge
- Opinion assigned by
- Hugo L. Black
- How the case arrived
- Appeal
- Issue (SCDB)
- Desegregation (general)
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Legal provision
- Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 (interstate commerce clause)
- Type of law
- Constitution
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Hugo L. Black | Concurrence | |
| Justice Stanley F. Reed | Majority | |
| Justice Felix Frankfurter | Majority | |
| Justice William O. Douglas | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Frank Murphy | Majority | |
| Justice Robert H. Jackson | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Wiley B. Rutledge | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Harold H. Burton | Majority | |
| Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson | Dissent |
Full case caption
Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan
SCDB identifiers: case 1947-033, docket 1947-033-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Desegregation (general)”
- Oyama v. CaliforniaLaw held unconstitutional
- Patton v. Mississippi
- Moore v. New York
- Shelley et Ux. v. Kraemer et Ux.
- Hurd et Ux. v. Hodge
- Cassell v. Texas
Cases on the same legal provision: Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 (interstate commerce clause)
- United States v. Sullivan
- Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Board of Railroad Commissioners of Montana
- Toomer v. WitsellLaw held unconstitutional
- Central Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. MealeyLaw held unconstitutional
- Memphis Natural Gas Co. v. Stone
- Joseph v. Carter & Weekes Stevedoring Co.Law held unconstitutional
Same Term, same area (Civil Rights)
- Delgadillo v. Carmichael
- Patton v. Mississippi
- Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of OklahomaLaw held unconstitutional
- Oyama v. CaliforniaLaw held unconstitutional
- Le Maistre v. Leffers
- Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan
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