Dunbar-Stanley Studios, Inc. v. Alabama
393 U.S. 537 · Decided February 25, 1969 · 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
Dunbar-Stanley Studios, Inc. v. Alabama was decided on February 25, 1969 unanimously (9–0). The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Abe Fortas wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “State or local government tax” in the Economic Activity area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 393 U.S. 537 · 89 S. Ct. 757 · 21 L. Ed. 2d 759 · 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2441
- Docket number
- 376
- Decided
- February 25, 1969
- Argued
- January 16, 1969
- Court era
- Warren Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 9–0 (unanimous)
- Majority opinion
- Abe Fortas
- Opinion assigned by
- Earl Warren
- How the case arrived
- Appeal
- Issue (SCDB)
- State or local government tax
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- 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 | Majority | |
| Justice William O. Douglas | Majority | |
| Chief Justice Earl Warren | Majority | |
| Justice John M. Harlan II | Majority | |
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Potter Stewart | Majority | |
| Justice Byron R. White | Special concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Abe Fortas | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Majority |
Full case caption
Dunbar-Stanley Studios, Inc. v. Alabama
SCDB identifiers: case 1968-044, docket 1968-044-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “State or local government tax”
- Whyy, Inc. v. Borough of GlassboroLaw held unconstitutional
- Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Missouri State Tax Commission
- National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of the State of IllinoisLaw held unconstitutional
- Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority District v. Delta Airlines, Inc.
- Evco v. JonesLaw held unconstitutional
- Heublein, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Commission
Cases on the same legal provision: Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 (interstate commerce clause)
- Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Chicago
- Maryland v. Wirtz
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.Law held unconstitutional
- Perez v. United States
- Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hostetter
- Polar Ice Cream & Creamery Co. v. AndrewsLaw held unconstitutional
Same Term, same area (Economic Activity)
- Continental Oil Co. v. United States
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Co.
- Whyy, Inc. v. Borough of GlassboroLaw held unconstitutional
- Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co.
- Grunenthal v. Long Island Rail Road Co.
- United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., Inc.
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