Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore
439 U.S. 322 · Decided January 9, 1979 · 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
Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore was decided on January 9, 1979 by a vote of 8–1. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Potter Stewart wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Collateral estoppel or res judicata” in the Judicial Power area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 439 U.S. 322 · 99 S. Ct. 645 · 58 L. Ed. 2d 552 · 1979 U.S. LEXIS 50
- Docket number
- 77-1305
- Decided
- January 9, 1979
- Argued
- October 30, 1978
- Court era
- Burger 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
- Potter Stewart
- Opinion assigned by
- Warren E. Burger
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Collateral estoppel or res judicata
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Legal provision
- Estoppel
- Type of law
- Other
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Potter Stewart | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Majority | |
| Chief Justice Warren E. Burger | Majority | |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Majority | |
| Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice William H. Rehnquist | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Majority |
Full case caption
Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc., et al. v. Shore
SCDB identifiers: case 1978-022, docket 1978-022-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Collateral estoppel or res judicata”
- Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie
- United States v. Mendoza
- United States v. Stauffer Chemical Co.
- Ford v. Ford
- United States v. Ohio Power Co.
- Semtek International Incorporated v. Lockheed Martin Corporation
Cases on the same legal provision: Estoppel
- Montana v. United States
- Schweiker v. Hansen
- Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Miranda
- Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc.
- One Lot Emerald Cut Stones and One Ring v. United States
- Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois FoundationAltered precedent
Same Term, same area (Judicial Power)
- Long Island Rail Road Co. v. Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Co.
- Carey v. Wynn
- Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Sheehan
- Hunter v. Dean
- Mobay Chemical Corp. v. Costle
- California v. Arizona
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