Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S. A.
Headline: Retailer’s appeal is blocked as the Court issues an equally divided decision, affirming the lower court’s judgment and leaving the dispute between a wholesale retailer and a foreign company intact.
Holding:
- Leaves the lower court’s ruling in place for the parties.
- Does not create a new nationwide Supreme Court rule because the Court was evenly split.
Summary
Background
Costco Wholesale Corporation and Omega S.A., two companies, brought a legal dispute that reached the Supreme Court after review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court’s short published text shows the case was decided in a per curiam slip opinion dated December 13, 2010. The slip opinion’s cover also notes it is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports and includes the usual notice about reporting typographical or formal errors.
Reasoning
The Court stated simply that "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court." The published text contains only that per curiam disposition and does not record a signed majority opinion explaining the Justices’ legal reasoning. The opinion text also notes that Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Real world impact
This ruling affirms the judgment from the lower court and leaves the outcome in place for the parties involved. Because the Court was equally divided, the short per curiam disposition in this published text does not include a full majority explanation of the legal issues, and the opinion itself provides limited guidance for other courts addressing similar disputes.
Dissents or concurrances
No separate concurring or dissenting opinions appear in the published text; Justice Kagan did not participate in the decision.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?