Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corporation
496 U.S. 384 · Decided June 11, 1990 · 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
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corporation was decided on June 11, 1990 by a vote of 8–1. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision in part and reversed or vacated it in part. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Federal rules of civil procedure” in the Judicial Power area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 496 U.S. 384 · 110 S. Ct. 2447 · 110 L. Ed. 2d 359 · 1990 U.S. LEXIS 3088
- Docket number
- 89-275
- Decided
- June 11, 1990
- Argued
- February 20, 1990
- Court era
- Rehnquist Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority opinion
- Sandra Day O'Connor
- Opinion assigned by
- William H. Rehnquist
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Federal rules of civil procedure
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Legal provision
- Federal Rules of Civil or Appellate Procedure
- Type of law
- Court rules
- 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 | |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Majority | |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Majority | |
| Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Majority | |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority |
Full case caption
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corporation, et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 1989-107, docket 1989-107-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Federal rules of civil procedure”
- Billy J. Temple v. Synthes Corporation, Ltd.
- Pavelic & Leflore v. Marvel Entertainment Group
- Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc. and Michael Shipp
- Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co.
- Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney
- Beech Aircraft Corporation v. Rainey
Cases on the same legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil or Appellate Procedure
- Missouri v. Jenkins
- Firstier Mortgage Company v. Investors Mortgage Insurance Company
- Jill S. Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.
- Martin v. Wilks
- Robert C. Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail
- Houston v. Lack
Same Term, same area (Judicial Power)
- James M. White, Etc. v. United States
- Pavelic & Leflore v. Marvel Entertainment Group
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Richard Sperling
- Spallone v. United States
- Franchise Tax Board of California v. Alcan Aluminium Ltd.
- W. S. Kirkpatrick & Co., Inc. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp.Altered precedent
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