skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Search for:
All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

Did you mean contracts or assumes?

Your query contracts or assumpsit returned 83 results.

1000 CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
862 COHENS V. VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
862 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
862 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
681 CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
431 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
431 ALDEN V. MAINE
[Dissent]
431 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
1000 MOBIL OIL EXPLORATION & PRODUCINGSOUTHEAST, INC. V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding-contrary to decisions of this Court, other courts of appeals, and state courts, as well as the Restatements and leading treatises-that petitioner could not receive restitution of the $78 million paid to the United States for oil and gas leases following the enactment of a statute, which the trial court found ""clearly reduce(d) the value and materially alter(ed) the structure and framework"" of those leases, because (1) petitioner had not proved that this material breach of its leases caused it any injury and (2) Congress repealed the statute after petitioner filed suit asserting material breach?"
934 MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL GROUP INC. V. PUBLICUTIL. DIST. NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH CTY.
[Syllabus]
910 GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP. V. BAZZLE
[Syllabus]
Whether the federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.1et seq., prohibits class-action procedures from being superimposed onto an arbitration agreement that does not provide for class action arbitration.
910 NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. JAMES N. KIRBY,PTY LTD.
[Syllabus]
858 CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. V. ADAMS
[Syllabus]
Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act-which excludes from that Act's coverage "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce"-exempts the employment contracts of transportation workers, but not other employment contracts.
826
[Syllabus]
826 CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLA. V. LEAVITT
[Syllabus]
795 UNITED STATES V. EURODIF S. A.
[Syllabus]
757
[Syllabus]
716 UNITED STATES V. WINSTAR CORP. ET AL., 518 U.S. 839 (1996).
[Syllabus]
671 PRESTON V. FERRER
[Syllabus]
619 HERCULES INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 417 (1996).
[Syllabus]
553 RUSH PRUDENTIAL HMO, INC. V. MORAN
[Syllabus]
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 does not preempt §4-10 of the Illinois Health Maintenance Organization Act-which provides recipients of health coverage by an HMO with a right to independent medical review of certain benefit denials-as applied to health benefits provided by an HMO under contract with an employee welfare benefit plan.
553 FRANCONIA ASSOCIATES  V.  UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Because the enactment of the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987 qualified as a repudiation, rather than a present breach, of the immediate-prepayment provision of petitioners' loan agreements with the Farmers Home Administration, breach would occur, and 28 U. S. C. §2501's six-year limitations period would commence to run, when a borrower tenders prepayment and the Government then dishonors its obligation to accept the tender and release its control over use of the property securing the loan.
553
[Syllabus]
553
[Syllabus]
553 ARIZONA DEPT. OF REVENUE V. BLAZE CONSTR. CO.
[Syllabus]
553 BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS, WABAUNSEE COUNTY, KAN. V. UMBEHR, 518 U.S.668 (1996)
[Syllabus]
553 ROUSEY V. JACOWAY
[Syllabus]
553 DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL. V. CASAROTTO ET UX., 517 U.S. 681 (1996).
[Syllabus]
477 WHARF (HOLDINGS) LTD. V. UNITED INT’LHOLDINGS, INC. SYLLABUS
[Syllabus]
A company that sells an option to buy stock while secretly intending never to honor the option violates §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits using "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance" "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."
477 STOLT-NIELSEN S. A. V. ANIMALFEEDS INTL CORP.
[Syllabus]
477 PASQUANTINO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
477 NATIONAL PARK HOSPITALITY ASSN. V.DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
[Syllabus]
Whether the Contract Disputed Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601-613, applies to contracts between the National Park Service and private parties for the development, operation, and maintenance of concessions, such as restaurants, lodges, and gift shops, in the national parks.
477 UNICODE VALUE='8195'>KAWASAKI KISEN KAISHA LTD. V. REGAL-BELOIT CORP.
[Syllabus]
477
[Syllabus]
477 UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. WARD
[Syllabus]
377 DUNN V. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, 519 U.S. 465 (1997).
[Syllabus]
377 ASTRA USA, INC. V.SANTA CLARA COUNTY
[Syllabus]
377
[Syllabus]
377 MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
[Syllabus]
377 GRANITE ROCK CO. V. TEAMSTERS
[Syllabus]
377 NEBRASKA V. WYOMING, 515 U.S. 1 (1995)
[Syllabus]
377 VADEN V. DISCOVER BANK
[Syllabus]
377 ALLIED-BRUCE TERMINIX COS. V. DOBSON, 513 U.S. 265 (1995).
[Syllabus]
377 GRAHAM COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATIONDIST. V.UNITED STATES EX REL. WILSON
[Syllabus]
377 JONES V. R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS CO.
[Syllabus]
Does the four-year catch-all limitations period of 28 U.S.C. §1658 apply to new causes of action created by public law 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which were codified at 42 U.S.C. §1981(a) and (b)?
377 KIOWA TRIBE OF OK V. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 523 U.S. 751 (1998)
[Syllabus]
377 TEXTRON LYCOMING RECIPROCATING ENGINE DIV., AVCO CORP. V. AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, 523 U.S. 653 (1998)
[Syllabus]
377 EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH
[Syllabus]
238 KANSAS ET AL. V UTILICORP UNITED, INC., 497 U.S. 199 (1990)
[Syllabus]
238
[Syllabus]
238
[Syllabus]
238
[Syllabus]
238 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP. V. UNITED STATESEX REL. KIRK
[Syllabus]
238 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LELAND STANFORD JUNIORUNIV. V.ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC.
[Syllabus]
238 AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC., 524 U.S. 214 (1998)
[Syllabus]
238 MONTANA V. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, 523 U.S. 696 (1998)
[Syllabus]
238 VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. REEDER-SIMCO GMC, INC.
[Syllabus]
238 ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS V. PENA, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).
[Syllabus]
238 CIGNA CORP. V. AMARA
[Syllabus]
238 COMMISSIONER V. BANKS
[Syllabus]
238
[Syllabus]
238 NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. TASINI
[Syllabus]
Where freelance authors' articles in print periodicals were republished in electronic databases without the authors' consent, the copying was not authorized by the reproduction privilege afforded collective works publishers under §201(c) of the Copyright Act.
238 PLAINS COMMERCE BANK V. LONG FAMILY LAND &CATTLE CO.
[Syllabus]
238 ILLINOIS EX REL. MADIGAN V. TELEMARKETINGASSOCIATES, INC.
[Syllabus]
Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated.
238 CBOCS WEST, INC. V. HUMPHRIES
[Syllabus]
238 AETNA HEALTH INC. V. DAVILA
[Syllabus]
Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), as construed by the Supreme Court in Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987), and its progeny, completely preempts state-law claims by ERISA plan participants or beneficiaries who assert that a managed care company tortiously "failed to cover" (i.e., pay for) medical care?
238 ALLISON ENGINE CO. V. UNITED STATES EX REL.SANDERS
[Syllabus]
238 RENT-A-CENTER, WEST, INC. V. JACKSON
[Syllabus]
238 SOSSAMON V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
238 ATKINSON TRADING CO. V. SHIRLEY
[Syllabus]
The Navajo Nation's imposition of a hotel occupancy tax upon nonmembers on non-Indian fee land within its reservation is invalid.
238
[Syllabus]
238 LIMTIACO V. CAMACHO
[Syllabus]
238 AT&T MOBILITY LLC V. CONCEPCION
[Syllabus]
238 GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP.-ALA. V. RANDOLPH
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that an order compelling arbitration and dismissing a lawsuit's underlying claims is a ""final decision with respect to an arbitration"" appealable under 9 U.S.C. 16 (a) (3). 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that arbitration provision that was ""silent"" on the issue of costs and fees was unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act because the risk that plaintiff "" be required to bear unknown costs and fees potentially undermined her ability to vindicate statutory rights."
238 CROSBY V. NATIONAL FOREIGN TRADE COUNCIL
[Syllabus]
1. Whether economic sanctions against Burma enacted by Congress in 1996-- three months after enactment of the Massachusetts Burma Law-- implicitly permit, or preempt, state and local selective purchasing laws regarding Burma. 2. Whether selective purchasing law such as the Massachusetts Burma Law represent ""market participation,"" not regulation, and are therefore exempt from claims based on the Foreign Commerce Clause and the foreign affairs power of the federal government. 3. Whether selective purchasing laws such as the Massachusetts Burma Law unconstitutionally interfere with the power of the federal government to conduct foreign affairs. 4. Whether selective purchasing laws such as the Massachusetts Burma Law discriminate against foreign commerce in violation of the Foreign Commerce Clause."
238
[Syllabus]
238 AMERICAN AIRLINES V. WOLENS, 513 U.S. 219 (1995).
[Syllabus]
238 STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997).
[Syllabus]
238 LUJAN V. G & G FIRE SPRINKLERS, INC.
[Syllabus]
Because California law affords respondent public works project subcontractor sufficient opportunity to pursue its claim for payment under its contracts in state court, the statutory scheme does not deprive respondent of due process when it authorizes the State to order withholding of such payments from the contractor if a subcontractor fails to comply with certain Labor Code requirements; permits the contractor, in turn, to withhold similar sums from the subcontractor; and permits the contractor, or his assignee, to sue the awarding body for alleged breach of the contract.
238 HOWSAM V. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC.
[Syllabus]
A National Association of Securities Dealers arbitrator, rather than a court, should apply the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure's time limit rule to a client's dispute with a broker.
238 SEC V. EDWARDS
[Syllabus]
Whether the Court of appeals erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that an investment scheme is excluded from the term investment contract in the definitions of ''securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(10), if the promoter promises a fixed rather than variable return or if the investor is contractually entitled to a particular amount or rate of return.
238
[Syllabus]
238 TENET V. DOE
[Syllabus]
238 TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. V. BAILEY
[Syllabus]
238
[Syllabus]
238 ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP V. CARLISLE
[Syllabus]
238
[Syllabus]
238 SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. BURR
[Syllabus]
238 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
238 AMERICAN NEEDLE, INC. V. NATIONALFOOTBALL LEAGUE
[Syllabus]
238 HOLLY FARMS CORP. ET AL. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD. ET AL., 517 U.S. 392 (1996)
[Syllabus]