Frank v. Minnesota Newspaper Association, Inc.
490 U.S. 225 · Decided April 25, 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
Frank v. Minnesota Newspaper Association, Inc. was decided on April 25, 1989 by a vote of 6–3. The Court vacated the lower court's decision and remanded the case. The decision was issued per curiam (an unsigned opinion of the Court). SCDB classifies its main issue as “Mootness” in the Judicial Power area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 490 U.S. 225 · 109 S. Ct. 1734 · 104 L. Ed. 2d 264 · 1989 U.S. LEXIS 2132
- Docket number
- 87-1956
- Decided
- April 25, 1989
- Argued
- March 22, 1989
- Court era
- Rehnquist Court
- Decision type
- Per curiam (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 6–3
- Opinion assigned by
- William H. Rehnquist
- How the case arrived
- Appeal
- Issue (SCDB)
- Mootness
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Legal provision
- Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1 (case or controversy requirement)
- Type of law
- Constitution
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Byron R. White | Dissent | |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Dissent | |
| 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 | |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Majority | |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority |
Full case caption
Frank, Postmaster General of the United States, et al. v. Minnesota Newspaper Association, Inc.
SCDB identifiers: case 1988-078, docket 1988-078-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Mootness”
- American Foreign Service Association v. Garfinkel
- Gerald A. Lewis v. Continental Bank Corporation
- Otis R. Bowen v. Kenneth Kizer
- Burke v. Barnes
- United States Department of the Treasury v. Galioto
- United States v. Koecher
Cases on the same legal provision: Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1 (case or controversy requirement)
- Asarco Inc. v. Kadish
- Fw/pbs, Inc. v. City of DallasLaw held unconstitutional
- Franchise Tax Board of California v. Alcan Aluminium Ltd.
- Holland v. Illinois
- Washington v. Walter Harper
- New York State Club Association, Inc. v. City of New York
Same Term, same area (Judicial Power)
- McNamara v. County of San Diego Department of Social Services
- Beech Aircraft Corporation v. Rainey
- Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital
- Harbison-Walker Refractories v. Brieck
- Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.
- Mark H. Oring v. State Bar of California
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