CaseTrail

National Labor Relations Board v. Deena Artware, Inc.

361 U.S. 398 · Decided February 23, 1960 · 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

National Labor Relations Board v. Deena Artware, Inc. was decided on February 23, 1960 unanimously (8–0). The Court reversed the lower court's decision. Justice William O. Douglas wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Liability, miscellaneous” in the Economic Activity area.

Read the opinion

Case details

Citations
361 U.S. 398 · 80 S. Ct. 441 · 4 L. Ed. 2d 400 · 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1950
Docket number
46
Decided
February 23, 1960
Argued
December 8, 1959
Court era
Warren Court
Decision type
Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
Disposition
Reversed
Outcome for petitioner
The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
Vote
8–0 (unanimous)
Majority opinion
William O. Douglas
Opinion assigned by
Earl Warren
How the case arrived
Certiorari
Decision direction (SCDB)
Liberal what this means

How the Justices voted

JusticeVoteSeparate writing
Justice Hugo L. BlackMajority
Justice Felix FrankfurterSpecial concurrenceWrote an opinion
Justice William O. DouglasMajorityWrote an opinion
Justice Tom C. ClarkMajority
Chief Justice Earl WarrenMajority
Justice John M. Harlan IISpecial concurrence
Justice William J. Brennan Jr.Majority
Justice Charles E. WhittakerMajority

Did not participate: Potter Stewart.

Full case caption

National Labor Relations Board v. Deena Artware, Inc., et al.

SCDB identifiers: case 1959-032, docket 1959-032-01.

Other cases on “Liability, miscellaneous”

See all

Same Term, same area (Economic Activity)

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