Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg

This article only references primary sources. Please help improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (July 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 9, 1989 Decided June 23, 1989
Full case name	Granfinanciera, S.A., et al., Petitioners v. Paul C. Nordberg, Creditor Trustee for the Estate of Chase & Sanborn Corporation, etc.
Citations	492 U.S. 33 (more) 109 S. Ct. 2782, 106 L.Ed.2d 26
Argument	Oral argument
Case history
Prior	In 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
Majority	Brennan, joined by Rehnquist, Marshall, Stevens, Kennedy; Scalia (Parts I, II, III, and V)
Concurrence	Scalia (in part and in judgment)
Dissent	White
Dissent	Blackmun, joined by O'Connor

Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989), is a 1989 United States Supreme Court 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".^[1]

• SEC v. Jarkesy

• Text of Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg is available from: Cornell Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

• v
• t
• e