Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch
488 U.S. 299 · Decided January 11, 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
Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch was decided on January 11, 1989 by a vote of 8–1. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist 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
- 488 U.S. 299 · 109 S. Ct. 609 · 102 L. Ed. 2d 646 · 1989 U.S. LEXIS 313
- Docket number
- 87-1160
- Decided
- January 11, 1989
- Argued
- November 7, 1988
- Court era
- Rehnquist Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority opinion
- William H. Rehnquist
- Opinion assigned by
- William H. Rehnquist
- How the case arrived
- Appeal
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, takings clause
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- 28 U.S.C. § 1257
- Type of law
- Infrequently litigated statute
- 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 | Concurrence | |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Majority | |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Jurisdictional dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Majority | |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Concurrence | |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority |
Full case caption
Duquesne Light Co. et al. v. Barasch et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 1988-019, docket 1988-019-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- United States v. Sperry Corporation
- Richard Pennell and Tri-County Apartment House Owners Association v. City of San Jose and City Council of San Jose
- J. Paul Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Commission
- Nollan et Ux. v. California Coastal Commission
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los AngelesLaw held unconstitutional
- Hodel v. IrvingLaw held unconstitutional
Cases on the same legal provision: 28 U.S.C. § 1257
- Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller
- R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Durham County
- Xerox Corp. v. County of Harris
- O'Dell v. Espinoza
- Flynt v. Ohio
- Melvin Jefferson v. City of Tarrant
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- Arizona v. Youngblood
- National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Jerry Tarkanian
- Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson
- Michael H. v. Gerald D.
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