Solesbee v. Balkcom
339 U.S. 9 · Decided February 20, 1950 · 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
Solesbee v. Balkcom was decided on February 20, 1950 by a vote of 7–1. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Hugo L. Black wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, prisoners' and defendants' rights” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 339 U.S. 9 · 70 S. Ct. 457 · 94 L. Ed. 2d 604 · 1950 U.S. LEXIS 2296
- Docket number
- 77
- Decided
- February 20, 1950
- Argued
- November 15, 1949
- Court era
- Vinson Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 7–1
- Majority opinion
- Hugo L. Black
- Opinion assigned by
- Fred M. Vinson
- How the case arrived
- Appeal
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, prisoners' and defendants' rights
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Hugo L. Black | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Stanley F. Reed | Majority | |
| Justice Felix Frankfurter | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Robert H. Jackson | Majority | |
| Justice Harold H. Burton | Majority | |
| Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson | Majority | |
| Justice Tom C. Clark | Majority | |
| Justice Sherman Minton | Majority |
Did not participate: William O. Douglas.
Full case caption
Solesbee v. Balkcom, Warden
SCDB identifiers: case 1949-047, docket 1949-047-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, prisoners' and defendants' rights”
- Arciniega v. Freeman, U.S. Marshal
- Younger v. Gilmore
- Morrissey v. Brewer
- McGinnis v. Royster
- Hurtado v. United States
- Marshall v. United States
Cases on the same legal provision: Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Law held unconstitutional
- Treichler v. WisconsinLaw held unconstitutional
- Travelers Health Association v. Virginia ex Rel. State Corporation Commission
- Watts v. Indiana
- Turner v. Pennsylvania
- Harris v. South Carolina
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- McGrath v. Manufacturers Trust Co.
- United States v. Toronto
- United States v. Commodities Trading Corp.
- United States v. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co.
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Law held unconstitutional
- Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc.
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