CaseTrail

Nash v. United States

398 U.S. 1 · Decided May 18, 1970 · 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

Nash v. United States was decided on May 18, 1970 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 “Federal taxation (Internal Revenue Code)” in the Federal Taxation area.

Read the opinion

Case details

Citations
398 U.S. 1 · 90 S. Ct. 1550 · 26 L. Ed. 2d 1 · 1970 U.S. LEXIS 107
Docket number
678
Decided
May 18, 1970
Argued
April 21, 1970
Court era
Burger 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
Warren E. Burger
How the case arrived
Certiorari
Legal provision
Internal Revenue Code
Type of law
Federal statute
Decision direction (SCDB)
Conservative what this means

How the Justices voted

JusticeVoteSeparate writing
Justice Hugo L. BlackDissentCo-authored an opinion
Justice William O. DouglasMajorityWrote an opinion
Justice John M. Harlan IIMajority
Justice William J. Brennan Jr.Majority
Justice Potter StewartDissentCo-authored an opinion
Justice Byron R. WhiteMajority
Justice Thurgood MarshallMajority
Chief Justice Warren E. BurgerMajority

Full case caption

Nash et al. v. United States

SCDB identifiers: case 1969-093, docket 1969-093-01.

Other cases on “Federal taxation (Internal Revenue Code)”

See all

Cases on the same legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

Same Term, same area (Federal Taxation)

See all

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