CaseTrail

Palermo v. Luckenbach Steamship Co., Inc.

355 U.S. 20 · Decided October 21, 1957 · 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

Palermo v. Luckenbach Steamship Co., Inc. was decided on October 21, 1957 by a vote of 8–1. The Court reversed 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 “Sufficiency of evidence in injury or death compensation” in the Economic Activity area.

Read the opinion

Case details

Citations
355 U.S. 20 · 78 S. Ct. 1 · 2 L. Ed. 2d 3 · 1957 U.S. LEXIS 1571
Docket number
350
Decided
October 21, 1957
Court era
Warren Court
Decision type
Per curiam (no oral argument)
Disposition
Reversed and remanded
Outcome for petitioner
The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
Vote
8–1
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 FrankfurterJurisdictional dissentWrote an opinion
Justice William O. DouglasMajority
Justice Harold H. BurtonSpecial concurrence
Justice Tom C. ClarkMajority
Chief Justice Earl WarrenMajority
Justice John M. Harlan IISpecial concurrenceWrote an opinion
Justice William J. Brennan Jr.Majority
Justice Charles E. WhittakerSpecial concurrence

Full case caption

Palermo v. Luckenbach Steamship Co., Inc.

SCDB identifiers: case 1957-002, docket 1957-002-01.

Other cases on “Sufficiency of evidence in injury or death compensation”

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