United States v. Cardiff
344 U.S. 174 · Decided December 8, 1952 · 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
United States v. Cardiff was decided on December 8, 1952 by a vote of 8–1. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice William O. Douglas wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, miscellaneous” in the Due Process area. SCDB records that the Court declared an act of Congress unconstitutional.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 344 U.S. 174 · 73 S. Ct. 189 · 97 L. Ed. 2d 200 · 1952 U.S. LEXIS 1456
- Docket number
- 27
- Decided
- December 8, 1952
- Argued
- November 17, 1952
- 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
- 8–1
- Majority opinion
- William O. Douglas
- Opinion assigned by
- Fred M. Vinson
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, miscellaneous
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
- Type of law
- Federal statute
- Held unconstitutional
- An act of Congress
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Hugo L. Black | Majority | |
| Justice Stanley F. Reed | Majority | |
| Justice Felix Frankfurter | Majority | |
| Justice William O. Douglas | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Robert H. Jackson | Special concurrence | |
| Justice Harold H. Burton | Dissent | |
| Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson | Majority | |
| Justice Tom C. Clark | Majority | |
| Justice Sherman Minton | Majority |
Full case caption
United States v. Cardiff
SCDB identifiers: case 1952-021, docket 1952-021-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, miscellaneous”
- Leland v. Oregon
- Chessman v. Teets
- Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute
- Parker v. Illinois
- Cole v. Arkansas
- Thompson v. City of Louisville
Cases on the same legal provision: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
- 62 Cases of Jam v. United States
- United States v. Urbuteit
- United States v. Walsh
- Flemming v. Florida Citrus Exchange
- United States v. Wiesenfeld Warehouse Co.
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- United States v. Caltex (Philippines), Inc.
- City of New York v. New York
- Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States
- Shaughnessy v. United States ex Rel. Mezei
- United States v. Certain Parcels of Land in the County of Fairfax
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