Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc.
339 U.S. 594 · Decided May 29, 1950 · 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
Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc. was decided on May 29, 1950 by a vote of 6–2. The Court reversed the lower court's decision. Justice William O. Douglas 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
- 339 U.S. 594 · 70 S. Ct. 870 · 94 L. Ed. 2d 1088 · 1950 U.S. LEXIS 1924
- Docket number
- 568
- Decided
- May 29, 1950
- Argued
- April 19, 1950
- Court era
- Vinson Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 6–2
- Majority opinion
- William O. Douglas
- Opinion assigned by
- Fred M. Vinson
- How the case arrived
- Appeal
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, hearing or notice
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fifth Amendment (due process)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Hugo L. Black | Majority | |
| Justice Stanley F. Reed | Majority | |
| Justice Felix Frankfurter | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice William O. Douglas | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Robert H. Jackson | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Harold H. Burton | Special concurrence | |
| Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson | Majority | |
| Justice Sherman Minton | Majority |
Did not participate: Tom C. Clark.
Full case caption
Ewing, Federal Security Administrator, et al. v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc.
SCDB identifiers: case 1949-081, docket 1949-081-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, hearing or notice”
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Law held unconstitutional
- Whelchel v. McDonald
- Williams v. New York
- Federal Communications Commission v. WJR
- Taylor v. Alabama
- Paterno v. Lyons
Cases on the same legal provision: Fifth Amendment (due process)
- Johnson v. Eisentrager
- Jordan v. de George
- Dennis v. United States
- Ludecke v. Watkins
- National Labor Relations Board v. Donnelly Garment Co.
- Champlin Refining Co. v. United States
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- McGrath v. Manufacturers Trust Co.
- United States v. Toronto
- Solesbee v. Balkcom
- United States v. Commodities Trading Corp.
- United States v. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co.
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Law held unconstitutional
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