Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc.

United States Supreme Court
436 U.S. 307 (1978)


Facts

On September 11, 1975, an inspector with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) appeared at Barlow’s, Inc. (Barlow’s) (defendant), an electrical and plumbing installation business. The inspector asked Bill Barlow, the president and general manager, to enter the non-public area of the premises to perform an inspection. The inspector said that Barlow’s had been selected for inspection as part of OSHA’s regular inspection program.  Barlow asked the inspector if he had a warrant. The inspector said he did not. Barlow refused to allow the inspector to enter the non-public areas of the company premises, based on Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure. Three months later, the Secretary of OSHA petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Idaho to issue an order compelling Barlow’s to admit the inspector. The district court did so, and the inspector presented the order to Barlow. Barlow again refused to allow inspection and sought injunctive relief against OSHA inspections. A three-judge court ruled in favor of Barlow’s. The Secretary appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is for members only. To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Issue

The issue section is for members only and includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)

The holding and reasoning section is for members only and includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Dissent (Stevens, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Here's why 10,000 law students rely on our case briefs:

  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners not other law students.
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet.
  • 7,515 briefs - keyed to 85 casebooks.
  • Uniform format for every case brief.
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language.
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions.
  • Ability to tag case briefs in an outlining tool.
  • Top-notch customer support.
Start Your Free Trial Now