Toomer v. Witsell
334 U.S. 385 · Decided June 7, 1948 · Supreme Court of the United States
At a glance
Toomer v. Witsell was decided on June 7, 1948 unanimously (9–0). The Court affirmed the lower court's decision in part and reversed or vacated it in part. Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Residency requirements” in the Civil Rights area. SCDB records that the Court declared a state or territorial law, regulation or constitutional provision unconstitutional.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 334 U.S. 385 · 68 S. Ct. 1156 · 92 L. Ed. 2d 1460 · 1948 U.S. LEXIS 2082
- Docket number
- 415
- Decided
- June 7, 1948
- Argued
- January 13, 1948
- Court era
- Vinson Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 9–0 (unanimous)
- Majority opinion
- Fred M. Vinson
- Opinion assigned by
- Fred M. Vinson
- How the case arrived
- Appeal
- Issue (SCDB)
- Residency requirements
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Legal provision
- Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 (interstate commerce clause)
- Type of law
- Constitution
- Held unconstitutional
- A state or territorial law, regulation or constitutional provision
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Hugo L. Black | Special concurrence | |
| Justice Stanley F. Reed | Majority | |
| Justice Felix Frankfurter | Special concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice William O. Douglas | Majority | |
| Justice Frank Murphy | Majority | |
| Justice Robert H. Jackson | Special concurrence | |
| Justice Wiley B. Rutledge | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Harold H. Burton | Majority | |
| Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
Full case caption
Toomer et al. v. Witsell et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 1947-091, docket 1947-091-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Residency requirements”
- Hall et Ux. v. Beals
- Dunn v. BlumsteinAltered precedentLaw held unconstitutional
- Carter v. Stanton
- Marston v. Lewis
- Burns v. Fortson
- Rosario v. Rockefeller
Cases on the same legal provision: Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 (interstate commerce clause)
- Central Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. MealeyLaw held unconstitutional
- Memphis Natural Gas Co. v. Stone
- Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan
- United States v. Sullivan
- Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Board of Railroad Commissioners of Montana
- Ott v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co.Altered precedent
Same Term, same area (Civil Rights)
- Delgadillo v. Carmichael
- Patton v. Mississippi
- Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of OklahomaLaw held unconstitutional
- Oyama v. CaliforniaLaw held unconstitutional
- Le Maistre v. Leffers
- Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan
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