Reynoldsville Casket Co. v. Carol L. Hyde
514 U.S. 749 · Decided May 15, 1995 · 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
Reynoldsville Casket Co. v. Carol L. Hyde was decided on May 15, 1995 unanimously (9–0). The Court reversed the lower court's decision. Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, jurisdiction over nonresidents” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 514 U.S. 749 · 115 S. Ct. 1745 · 131 L. Ed. 2d 820 · 1995 U.S. LEXIS 3182
- Docket number
- 94-3
- Decided
- May 15, 1995
- Argued
- February 27, 1995
- Court era
- Rehnquist Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 9–0 (unanimous)
- Majority opinion
- Stephen G. Breyer
- Opinion assigned by
- William H. Rehnquist
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, jurisdiction over nonresidents
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Article VI, Section 2 (supremacy clause)
- Type of law
- Constitution
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Majority | |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Special concurrence | |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Special concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice David H. Souter | Majority | |
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Concurrence | |
| Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg | Majority | |
| Justice Stephen G. Breyer | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
Full case caption
Reynoldsville Casket Co., et al. v. Carol L. Hyde
SCDB identifiers: case 1994-057, docket 1994-057-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, jurisdiction over nonresidents”
- Burnham v. Superior Court of California
- Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc.Law held unconstitutional
- Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk
- Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman
- Omni Capital International, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd.
- Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California
Cases on the same legal provision: Article VI, Section 2 (supremacy clause)
- Mark Howlett v. Scott Rose
- Stephen P. Crosby v. National Foreign Trade CouncilLaw held unconstitutional
- Northwest Central Pipeline Corp. v. State Corporation Commission of Kansas
- Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.Law held unconstitutional
- George S. Bennett v. ArkansasLaw held unconstitutional
- Rose v. Rose
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
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