Vaughn v. Vermilion Corp.
444 U.S. 206 · Decided December 4, 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
Vaughn v. Vermilion Corp. was decided on December 4, 1979 by a vote of 6–3. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision in part, reversed or vacated it in part, and remanded the case. The decision was issued per curiam (an unsigned opinion of the Court). SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, takings clause” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 444 U.S. 206 · 100 S. Ct. 399 · 62 L. Ed. 2d 365 · 1979 U.S. LEXIS 154
- Docket number
- 77-1819
- Decided
- December 4, 1979
- Argued
- October 1, 1979
- Court era
- Burger Court
- Decision type
- Per curiam (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 6–3
- Opinion assigned by
- Warren E. Burger
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, takings clause
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Dissent | |
| Justice Potter Stewart | Majority | |
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Dissent | |
| Chief Justice Warren E. Burger | Majority | |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Majority |
Full case caption
Vaughn et al. v. Vermilion Corp.
SCDB identifiers: case 1979-012, docket 1979-012-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- Kaiser Aetna v. United States
- Andrus v. Allard
- Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
- United States v. 564.54 Acres of Land
- Leo Sheep Co. v. United States
- United States v. Bodcaw Co.
Cases on the same legal provision: Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Agins et Ux. v. City of Tiburon
- Gurley v. Rhoden
- City of Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp.
- United States v. Fuller et Ux.
- United States v. Grand River Dam Authority
- General Box Co. v. United States
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- Andrus v. Allard
- Kaiser Aetna v. United States
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
- Rush v. Savchuk
- Vitek v. JonesLaw held unconstitutional
- Marshall v. Jerrico, 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