Jump to content

Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IntoThinAir (talk | contribs) at 22:46, 6 July 2024 (Create page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg
Argued January 9, 1989
Decided June 23, 1989
Full case nameGranfinanciera, S.A., et al., Petitioners v. Paul C. Nordberg, Creditor Trustee for the Estate of Chase & Sanborn Corporation, etc.
Citations492 U.S. 33 (more)
109 S.Ct. 2782, 106 L.Ed.2d 26
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorIn re Chase & Sanborn Corp., 835 F.2d 1341 (11th Cir. 1988).
Holding
Provided that Congress has not permissibly assigned resolution of the claim to a non-Article III adjudicative body that does not use a jury as factfinder, the Seventh Amendment entitles a person who has not submitted a claim against a bankruptcy estate to a jury trial when sued by the bankruptcy trustee to recover an allegedly fraudulent monetary transfer.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Case opinions
MajorityBrennan, joined by Rehnquist, Marshall, Stevens, Kennedy; Scalia (Parts I, II, III, and V)
ConcurrenceScalia (in part and in judgment)
DissentWhite
DissentBlackmun, joined by O'Connor

Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989), is a 1989 Supreme Court of the United States case concerning the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a majority opinion by William J. Brennan, Jr., the Court held that the Seventh Amendment guaranteed individuals the right to a jury trial if they are sued by a bankruptcy trustee seeking the recovery of an allegedly fraudulent monetary transfer, provided that those individuals had not previously submitted a claim against the bankruptcy estate. The decision emphasized that a legal action seeking the recovery of money from someone who allegedly defrauded them would have been litigated at law, rather than in a court of equity, in 18th-century England; it therefore concluded that such an action was a "sui[t] at common law" for which the Seventh Amendment required a jury trial. However, the majority also emphasized that this holding only applied if "Congress has not permissibly assigned resolution of the claim to a non-Article III adjudicative body that does not use a jury as factfinder".

References

External links