Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Did you mean contracts or assumes?

Your query contracts or assumpsit returned 83 results.

	CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	COHENS V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Dissent]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	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because (1) petitioner had not proved that this material breach of its leases caused it any injury and (2) Congress repealed the statute after petitioner filed suit asserting material breach?"
	MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL GROUP INC. V. PUBLICUTIL. DIST. NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH CTY. [Syllabus]
	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.
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. JAMES N. KIRBY,PTY LTD. [Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLA. V. LEAVITT [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. EURODIF S. A. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WINSTAR CORP. ET AL., 518 U.S. 839 (1996). [Syllabus]
	PRESTON V. FERRER [Syllabus]
	HERCULES INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 417 (1996). [Syllabus]
	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.
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ARIZONA DEPT. OF REVENUE V. BLAZE CONSTR. CO. [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS, WABAUNSEE COUNTY, KAN. V. UMBEHR, 518 U.S.668 (1996) [Syllabus]
	ROUSEY V. JACOWAY [Syllabus]
	DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL. V. CASAROTTO ET UX., 517 U.S. 681 (1996). [Syllabus]
	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."
	STOLT-NIELSEN S. A. V. ANIMALFEEDS INTL CORP. [Syllabus]
	PASQUANTINO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	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.
	UNICODE VALUE='8195'>KAWASAKI KISEN KAISHA LTD. V. REGAL-BELOIT CORP. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. WARD [Syllabus]
	DUNN V. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, 519 U.S. 465 (1997). [Syllabus]
	ASTRA USA, INC. V.SANTA CLARA COUNTY [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	GRANITE ROCK CO. V. TEAMSTERS [Syllabus]
	NEBRASKA V. WYOMING, 515 U.S. 1 (1995) [Syllabus]
	VADEN V. DISCOVER BANK [Syllabus]
	ALLIED-BRUCE TERMINIX COS. V. DOBSON, 513 U.S. 265 (1995). [Syllabus]
	GRAHAM COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATIONDIST. V.UNITED STATES EX REL. WILSON [Syllabus]
	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)?
	KIOWA TRIBE OF OK V. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) [Syllabus]
	TEXTRON LYCOMING RECIPROCATING ENGINE DIV., AVCO CORP. V. AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, 523 U.S. 653 (1998) [Syllabus]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	KANSAS ET AL. V UTILICORP UNITED, INC., 497 U.S. 199 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP. V. UNITED STATESEX REL. KIRK [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LELAND STANFORD JUNIORUNIV. V.ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC. [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC., 524 U.S. 214 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MONTANA V. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, 523 U.S. 696 (1998) [Syllabus]
	VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. REEDER-SIMCO GMC, INC. [Syllabus]
	ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS V. PENA, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CIGNA CORP. V. AMARA [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	PLAINS COMMERCE BANK V. LONG FAMILY LAND &CATTLE CO. [Syllabus]
	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.
	CBOCS WEST, INC. V. HUMPHRIES [Syllabus]
	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?
	ALLISON ENGINE CO. V. UNITED STATES EX REL.SANDERS [Syllabus]
	RENT-A-CENTER, WEST, INC. V. JACKSON [Syllabus]
	SOSSAMON V. TEXAS [Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	LIMTIACO V. CAMACHO [Syllabus]
	AT&T MOBILITY LLC V. CONCEPCION [Syllabus]
	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."
	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."
	[Syllabus]
	AMERICAN AIRLINES V. WOLENS, 513 U.S. 219 (1995). [Syllabus]
	STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	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.
	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.
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	TENET V. DOE [Syllabus]
	TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. V. BAILEY [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP V. CARLISLE [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. BURR [Syllabus]
	GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN NEEDLE, INC. V. NATIONALFOOTBALL LEAGUE [Syllabus]
	HOLLY FARMS CORP. ET AL. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD. ET AL., 517 U.S. 392 (1996) [Syllabus]