Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Richard Sperling
493 U.S. 165 · Decided December 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
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Richard Sperling was decided on December 11, 1989 by a vote of 7–2. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Jurisdiction of federal district or territorial courts” in the Judicial Power area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 493 U.S. 165 · 110 S. Ct. 482 · 107 L. Ed. 2d 480 · 1989 U.S. LEXIS 5910
- Docket number
- 88-1203
- Decided
- December 11, 1989
- Argued
- October 2, 1989
- 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
- 7–2
- Majority opinion
- Anthony M. Kennedy
- Opinion assigned by
- William J. Brennan Jr.
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Legal provision
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act
- Type of law
- Federal 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 | Majority | |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Majority | |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Majority | |
| Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist | Dissent | |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Majority | |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Majority | |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
Full case caption
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Richard Sperling et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 1989-013, docket 1989-013-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Jurisdiction of federal district or territorial courts”
- Spallone v. United States
- C. T. Carden v. Arkoma Associates
- Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation v. Ticktin
- Freeport-McMoran Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc.
- Bowen v. Massachusetts
- United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc.
Cases on the same legal provision: Age Discrimination in Employment Act
- Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. Betts
- Charles Z. Stevens v. Department of the Treasury
- Robert D. Gilmer v. Interstate/johnson Lane Corporation
- Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Angelo J. Solimino
- Ellis Gregory, Jr. and Anthony P. Nugent, Jr. v. John D. Ashcroft
- Hazen Paper Company v. Walter F. Biggins
Same Term, same area (Judicial Power)
- James M. White, Etc. v. United States
- Pavelic & Leflore v. Marvel Entertainment Group
- Spallone v. United States
- Franchise Tax Board of California v. Alcan Aluminium Ltd.
- W. S. Kirkpatrick & Co., Inc. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp.Altered precedent
- Elizabeth Dole v. United Steelworkers of America
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