Nelson v. City of New York
352 U.S. 103 · Decided December 10, 1956 · 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
Nelson v. City of New York was decided on December 10, 1956 by a vote of 8–1. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, takings clause” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 352 U.S. 103 · 77 S. Ct. 195 · 1 L. Ed. 2d 171 · 1956 U.S. LEXIS 34
- Docket number
- 30
- Decided
- December 10, 1956
- Argued
- November 7, 1956
- Court era
- Warren Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority opinion
- Earl Warren
- Opinion assigned by
- Earl Warren
- How the case arrived
- Appeal
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, takings clause
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Hugo L. Black | Majority | |
| Justice Stanley F. Reed | Majority | |
| Justice Felix Frankfurter | Majority | |
| Justice William O. Douglas | Majority | |
| Justice Harold H. Burton | Majority | |
| Justice Tom C. Clark | Majority | |
| Chief Justice Earl Warren | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice John M. Harlan II | Dissent | |
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Majority |
Full case caption
Nelson et Al., Successor Trustees, et al. v. City of New York
SCDB identifiers: case 1956-011, docket 1956-011-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- United States v. Twin City Power Co.
- United States v. Dow
- United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co.
- Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken
- Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States
- Berman v. Parker
Cases on the same legal provision: Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Walker v. City of HutchinsonLaw held unconstitutional
- Fikes v. Alabama
- Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of New Mexico
- United States ex Rel. Darcy v. Handy
- Chessman v. Teets
- Sweezy v. New Hampshire
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- Walker v. City of HutchinsonLaw held unconstitutional
- Chessman v. Teets
- Vanderbilt v. VanderbiltAltered precedent
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