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"

Your query damages returned 248 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

1000 STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.V. CAMPBELL
[Syllabus]
Whether the Utah Supreme Court, in direct contravention of this Court's decision in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S.559 (1996), and fundamental principles of due process, committed constitutional error by reinstating a $145 million punitive damage award that punishes out-of-state conduct, is 145 time greater than the compensatory damages in the case, and is based upon the defendant's alleged business practices nationwide over a twenty year period, which were unrelated and dissimilar to the conduct by the defendant that gave rise to the plaintiff's claims?
950 EXXON SHIPPING CO. V. BAKER
[Syllabus]
939 NORFOLK & WESTERN R. CO. V. AYERS
[Syllabus]
Mental anguish damages resulting from the fear of developing cancer may be recovered under the Federal Employers' Liability Act by a railroad worker suffering from the actionable injury asbestosis caused by work-related exposure to asbestos; the FELA's express terms, reinforced by consistent judicial applications of the Act, allow such a worker to recover his entire damages from a railroad whose negligence jointly caused his injury, thus placing on the railroad the burden of seeking contribution from other potential tortfeasors.
904 ATLANTIC SOUNDING CO. V. TOWNSEND
[Syllabus]
878 DOE V. CHAO
[Syllabus]
849 O'GILVIE MINORS V. UNITED STATES, 519 U.S. 79 (1996)
[Syllabus]
835 FELTNER V. COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC., 523 U.S. 340 (1998)
[Syllabus]
835 UNITED STATES V. WHITE MOUNTAINAPACHE TRIBE
[Syllabus]
Public Law 86-392 gives rise to Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims over respondent Tribe's suit for money damages against the United States for breach of a fiduciary duty to manage Fort Apache land and improvements held in trust for the Tribe but occupied by the Government.
800
[Syllabus]
800 GEBSER V. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST., 524 U.S. 274 (1998)
[Syllabus]
780 PHILIP MORRIS USA V. WILLIAMS
[Syllabus]
780 COOK COUNTY V. UNITED STATES EX REL.CHANDLER
[Syllabus]
Local governments are "persons" amenable to qui tam actions under the federal False Claims Act.
780
[Syllabus]
780 DOOLEY V. KOREAN AIR LINES CO., 524 U.S. 116 (1998)
[Syllabus]
760 KOONS BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC. V. NIGH
[Syllabus]
739 WEST V. GIBSON
[Syllabus]
716 COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. V. LEATHERMANTOOL GROUP, INC.
[Syllabus]
Courts of Appeals should apply a de novo, not an abuse-of-discretion, standard when reviewing district court determinations of the constitutionality of punitive damages awards.
716 DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF ED.
[Syllabus]
716 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE, 517 U.S. 559 (1996).
[Syllabus]
690 UNITED STATES V. NAVAJO NATION
[Syllabus]
Under United States v. Mitchell, 445 U. S. 535, and United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, the Navajo Tribe's claim for compensation from the Government based on the Interior Secretary's actions with respect to a coal lease between the Tribe and a private lessee fails, for it does not derive from any liability-imposing provision of the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 or its implementing regulations.
690 KOLSTAD V. AMERICAN DENTAL ASSN.
[Syllabus]
664 SOSSAMON V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
664
[Syllabus]
664 BARNES V. GORMAN
[Syllabus]
Punitive damages may not be awarded in private suits brought under §202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
664
[Syllabus]
632 MASTROBUONO V. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC., 514 U.S. 52 (1995).
[Syllabus]
632
[Syllabus]
598 EXXON CO., U. S. A., ET AL. V. SOFEC, INC., ET AL., 516 U.S. 1156 (1996).
[Syllabus]
598 MONTEREY V. DEL MONTE DUNES ATMONTEREY, LTD.
[Syllabus]
598 JEFFERSON V. CITY OF TARRANT, ALA., 522 U.S. 75 (1997)
[Syllabus]
598 ZICHERMAN V. KOREAN AIRLINES CO. LTD., 516 U.S. 217 (1996)
[Syllabus]
598 QUACKENBUSH, CAL. INS. COMM'R, ET AL. V. ALLSTATE INS. CO., 517 U.S. 706 (1996)
[Syllabus]
598
[Syllabus]
598 HAYWOOD V. DROWN
[Syllabus]
598 COHEN V. DE LA CRUZ, 523 U.S. 213 (1998)
[Syllabus]
560 POLLARD V. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO.
[Syllabus]
Front pay is not an element of compensatory damages under 42 U. S. C. §1981a and thus is not subject to the damages cap imposed by §1981a(b)(3).
560
[Syllabus]
560 LANE V. PENA, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., 518 U.S. 187 (1996).
[Syllabus]
560 EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES, LTD. V. TSUI YUAN TSENG
[Syllabus]
560 TEXACO, INC. V. HASBROUCK, 496 U.S. 543 (1990)
[Syllabus]
560 BOOTH V. CHURNER
[Syllabus]
Under 42 U. S. C. §1997e(a), an inmate seeking only money damages must complete any prison administrative process capable of addressing the inmate's complaint and providing some form of relief, even if the process does not make specific provision for monetary relief.
560 CIPOLLONE V. LIGGETT GROUP, 505 U.S. 504 (1992).
[Syllabus]
560 HUMANA INC. V. FORSYTH
[Syllabus]
560
[Syllabus]
560 CAMRETA V. GREENE
[Syllabus]
560 PACIFICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. V. BOOK
[Syllabus]
Whether a district court must compel arbitration of a plaintiff's RICO claims under a valid arbitration agreement even if that agreement does not allow an arbitrator to award punitive damages, leaving to the arbitrator in the first instance the decision of what remedies are available to the RICO plaintiff in arbitration.
517 METRO NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD CO. V. BUCKLEY, 521 U.S. 424 (1997)
[Syllabus]
517 PLAINS COMMERCE BANK V. LONG FAMILY LAND &CATTLE CO.
[Syllabus]
517 EEOC V. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC.
[Syllabus]
An agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes does not bar the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages, in an action to enforce Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
517 KANSAS ET AL. V UTILICORP UNITED, INC., 497 U.S. 199 (1990)
[Syllabus]
517
[Syllabus]
462 UNITED STATES V. GEORGIA
[Syllabus]
462
[Syllabus]
462 ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997).
[Syllabus]
462 SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. BURR
[Syllabus]
462
[Syllabus]
462
[Syllabus]
462 BP AMERICA PRODUCTION CO. V. BURTON
[Syllabus]
462 MONTANA V. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, 523 U.S. 696 (1998)
[Syllabus]
462 WALLACE V. KATO
[Syllabus]
462 WILKIE V. ROBBINS
[Syllabus]
462
[Syllabus]
462 UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 751 V. BROWN GROUP, INC., 517 U.S. 544 (1996)
[Syllabus]
462 EDWARDS V. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997).
[Syllabus]
462 AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC., 524 U.S. 214 (1998)
[Syllabus]
462 KLEHR ET UX. V. A. O. SMITH CORP., 117 S.CT. 1984, 138 L.ED.2D 373 (1997).
[Syllabus]
398
[Syllabus]
398 CSX TRANSP., INC. V. MCBRIDE
[Syllabus]
398 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA.V. GARRETT
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars suits by private citizens in federal court under the Americans with Disabilities Act against non-consenting states. 2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court by private citizens under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 against non-consenting states."
398 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.
398
[Syllabus]
398 HADDLE V. GARRISON
[Syllabus]
398 TENNESSEE V. LANE
[Syllabus]
Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilitites Act of 1990 is a proper exercise of Congress' power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and thus validly abrogates state sovereign immunity?
398
[Syllabus]
398 FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998)
[Syllabus]
398 NORFOLK SOUTHERN R.CO. V. SORRELL
[Syllabus]
398 ICC V. TRANSCON LINES, 513 U.S. 138 (1995).
[Syllabus]
398 CITY OF MILWAUKEE V. CEMENT DIV., NAT'L GYPSUM CO., 515 U.S. 189 (1995).
[Syllabus]
398 NEVADA DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES V. HIBBS
[Syllabus]
Whether 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2612 (a) (1) (C) exceeds Congress's enforcement authority under Section 5 of the Foruteenth Amendment.
398 GASPERINI V. CENTER FOR HUMANITIES, INC., 517 U.S. 1102 (1996).
[Syllabus]
398 YAMAHA MOTOR CORP., U. S. A., V. CALHOUN, 516 U.S. 199 (1996)
[Syllabus]
398 BEACH V. OCWEN FED. BANK, 523 U.S. 410 (1998)
[Syllabus]
398 JERMAN V. CARLISLE, MCNELLIE, RINI,KRAMER & ULRICH LPA
[Syllabus]
398 CLINTON V. JONES, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)
[Syllabus]
398 CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORP. V. MALESKO
[Syllabus]
The limited holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, may not be extended to confer a right of action for damages against private entities acting under color of federal law.
398
[Syllabus]
398 LOS ANGELES COUNTY V. HUMPHRIES
[Syllabus]
398 UNITED STATES V. WINSTAR CORP. ET AL., 518 U.S. 839 (1996).
[Syllabus]
398 DEPARTMENT OF ARMY V. BLUE FOX, INC.
[Syllabus]
398 RANCHO PALOS VERDES V. ABRAMS
[Syllabus]
398 FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998)
[Syllabus]
398 SOSA V. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350 creates a private cause of action for aliens for torts committed anywhere in violation of the law of nations or treaties of the United States or, instead, is a jurisdiction-granting provision that does not establish private rights of action? (2) Whether, to the extent that the Alien Tort Statute is not merely jurisdictional in nature, the challenged arrest in this case is actionable under the act? (3) Whether federal law enforcement officers, and agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration in particular, have authority to enforce a federal criminal statute that applies to acts perpetrated against a United States official in a foreign country by arresting an indicted criminal suspect on probable cause in a foreign country? (4) Whether an individual arrested in a foreign country may bring an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq., for false arrest, notwithstanding the FTCA's exclusion of "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country," 28 U.S.C. 2680(k), because the arrest was planned in the United States?
398 CITY OF SHERRILL V. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF N.Y.
[Syllabus]
315 WYETH V. LEVINE
[Syllabus]
315
[Syllabus]
315
[Syllabus]
315
[Syllabus]
315
[Syllabus]
315 SNYDER V. PHELPS
[Syllabus]
315 UNITED STATES V. LOCKE
[Syllabus]
Whether regulations adopted by the State of Washington governing staffing and operation of oceangoing oil tankers engaged in coastal and international commerce are preempted to the extent that they conflict with international obligations of the United States and Coast Guard regulations for such tankers promulgated pursuant to federal statutes and international conventions and agreements.
315
[Syllabus]
315 BANK ONE CHICAGO, N. A. V. MIDWEST BANK & TRUST CO., 516 U.S. 264 (1996).
[Syllabus]
315 VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. REEDER-SIMCO GMC, INC.
[Syllabus]
315
[Syllabus]
315 RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997).
[Syllabus]
315
[Syllabus]
315 SAMANTAR V. YOUSUF
[Syllabus]
315 DESERT PALACE, INC. V. COSTA
[Syllabus]
1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that direct evidence is not required in Title VII cases to trigger the application of the mixed-motive analysis set out in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins? 2. What are the appropriate standards for lower courts to follow in making a direct evidence determination in mixed-motive cases under Title VII?
315 CRAWFORD-EL V. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998)
[Syllabus]
315
[Syllabus]
315 PALAZZOLO V. RHODE ISLAND
[Syllabus]
Petitioner's claim that Rhode Island's application of its wetlands regulations took his property without compensation in violation of the Takings Clause is ripe for review and is not barred by his acquisition of title after the regulations' effective date; however, he failed to establish a deprivation of all economic use, for the parcel retains significant development value.
315 MEDIMMUNE, INC. V. GENENTECH, INC.
[Syllabus]
315 UNITED STATES V. HATTER
[Syllabus]
The judgment below is reversed insofar as the Federal Circuit found that the application of Medicare taxes to the salaries of federal judges taking office before 1983 violated the Compensation Clause, but affirmed insofar as that court found the application of Social Security taxes to the salaries of judges taking office before 1984 unconstitutional; a 1984 salary increase received by federal judges did not cure the latter violation.
315 GRANITE ROCK CO. V. TEAMSTERS
[Syllabus]
315
[Syllabus]
315 STERN V. MARSHALL
[Syllabus]
315 SARATOGA FISHING CO. V. J. M. MARTINAC & CO., 520 U.S. 875 (1997)
[Syllabus]
315 JOHNSON V. FANKELL, 520 U.S. 911 (1997).
[Syllabus]
315 RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995).
[Syllabus]
315 CAPERTON V. A.T. MASSEY COAL CO.
[Syllabus]
315 AT&T MOBILITY LLC V. CONCEPCION
[Syllabus]
315 PEARSON V. CALLAHAN
[Syllabus]
315 ALDEN V. MAINE
[Syllabus]
315 NORFOLK SOUTHERN R.CO. V. JAMES N. KIRBY,PTY LTD.
[Syllabus]
315 UNITED STATES V. NAVAJO NATION
[Syllabus]
315 JACKSON V. BIRMINGHAM BD. OF ED.
[Syllabus]
315
[Syllabus]
315 GLOBAL CROSSING TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. V.METROPHONES TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
[Syllabus]
315 BURLINGTON N. & S. F.R.CO. V. WHITE
[Syllabus]
315 KAWAAUHAU V. GEIGER, 523 U.S. 57 (1998)
[Syllabus]
315 MERCK KGAA V. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES I, LTD.
[Syllabus]
315 KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS
[Syllabus]
Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars a private suit in federal court against a State for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
315 RUHRGAS AG V. MARATHON OIL CO.
[Syllabus]
315 KALINA V. FLETCHER, 522 U.S. 118 (1997)
[Syllabus]
199
[Syllabus]
199 ALLISON ENGINE CO. V. UNITED STATES EX REL.SANDERS
[Syllabus]
199 NELSON V. CAMPBELL
[Syllabus]
Whether a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 by a death-sentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the procedures for carrying out the execution, is properly recharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254?
199 CHRISTOPHER V. HARBURY
[Syllabus]
Respondent did not state an actionable claim when she alleged that she was denied access to courts by Government officials, who intentionally deceived her in concealing information that her husband had been tortured and killed by the Guatemalan army.
199
[Syllabus]
199 KIRCHER V. PUTNAM FUNDS TRUST
[Syllabus]
199 BOROUGH OF DURYEA V. GUARNIERI
[Syllabus]
199 EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. V. NEZTSOSIE
[Syllabus]
199 CHANDRIS, INC. V. LATSIS, 515 U.S. 347 (1995).
[Syllabus]
199 MURPHY BROTHERS, INC. V. MICHETTI PIPESTRINGING, INC.
[Syllabus]
199 RAGSDALE V. WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC.
[Syllabus]
A Labor Department regulation requiring an employer to grant an additional 12 weeks of leave to an employee who has not been informed that a previous absence would be counted as part of the 12 weeks of leave guaranteed by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 is contrary to the Act and beyond the Labor Secretary's authority.
199 CONN V. GABBERT
[Syllabus]
199 MILLER V. FRENCH
[Syllabus]
The question presented is whether Section 3626(e) violates separation-of-powers principles by legislatively specifying a rule of decision or legislatively annulling a judgment."
199 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?"
199 SCHEIDLER V. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FORWOMEN, INC.
[Syllabus]
Because all of the predicate acts supporting the jury's finding of a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act must be reversed, the Seventh Circuit's decision that petitioner protesters' activities at abortion clinics violated RICO must also be reversed.
199 BROWN V. PRO FOOTBALL, INC.., 518 U.S. 231 (1996)
[Syllabus]
199 BOARD OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BRYAN COUNTY, OKLAHOMA V. BROWN, 520 U.S. 397 (1997)
[Syllabus]
199 MARTIN V. FRANKLIN CAPITAL CORP.
[Syllabus]
199
[Syllabus]
199 HERCULES INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 417 (1996).
[Syllabus]
199
[Syllabus]
199 WILSON V. LAYNE
[Syllabus]
199 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA V. DOE, 519 U.S. 425 (1997).
[Syllabus]
199 ATHERTON V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 519 U.S. 213 (1997).
[Syllabus]
199 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.
199 NO. 96-1671 RAINES V. BYRD, 521 U.S. 811 (1997)
[Syllabus]
199 ALEXANDER V. SANDOVAL
[Syllabus]
There is no private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
199 ASHCROFT V. AL-KIDD
[Syllabus]
199 NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. SHANKLIN
[Syllabus]
Whether the court of appeals properly applied this Court's decision in CSX Transportation, Inc. V. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993), when it held, in acknowledged conflict with decisions of three other circuits, that claims of negligence based on inadeguate warning devices at a railway grade crossing are not preempted even through the warning devices at the crossing were installed with federal funds under a project approved by the federal government."
199 AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC. V. WINDSOR, 117 S.CT. 2231, 138 L.ED.2D 689 (1997).
[Syllabus]
199 MONSANTO CO. V. GEERTSON SEED FARMS
[Syllabus]
199 ALVAREZ V. SMITH
[Syllabus]
199
[Syllabus]
199 INYO COUNTY V. PAIUTE-SHOSHONE INDIANS OFBISHOP COMMUNITY OF BISHOP COLONY
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity enable Indians tribes, their gambling casinos and other commercial businesses to prohibit the searching of their property by law enforcement officers for criminal evidence pertaining to the commission of off-reservation State crimes, when the search is pursuant to a search warrant issued upon probable cause. 2. Whether such a search by State law enforcement officers constitutes a violation of the tribe's civil rights that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 3. Whether, if such a search is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the State law enforcement officers who conducted the search pursuant to the warrant are nonetheless entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
199 14 PENN PLAZA LLC V. PYETT
[Syllabus]
199 TEXTRON LYCOMING RECIPROCATING ENGINE DIV., AVCO CORP. V. AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, 523 U.S. 653 (1998)
[Syllabus]
199 UNITED STATES V. TOHONO OODHAM NATION
[Syllabus]
199
[Syllabus]
199 HEMI GROUP, LLC V. CITY OF NEW YORK
[Syllabus]
199
[Syllabus]
199 BARTNICKI V. VOPPER
[Syllabus]
Respondent news media's disclosure of the contents of an illegally intercepted cell phone conversation about a public issue is protected by the First Amendment.
199 POSTAL SERVICE V. FLAMINGO INDUSTRIES (USA) LTD.
[Syllabus]
The federal antitrust laws apply to a person, which is defined to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of * * * the United States. 15 U.S.C.7 (sherman Act), 12 (a) (Clayton Act). The question presented is whether the United States Postal Service is a person amenable to suit under the antitrust laws.
199
[Syllabus]
199 NYNEX CORP. V. DISCON, INC.
[Syllabus]
199 METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC. V.GROKSTER, LTD.
[Syllabus]
199 TRW INC. V. ANDREWS
[Syllabus]
The Fair Credit Reporting Act's statute of limitations-which requires an action to be brought "within two years from the date on which the liability arises, except that where a defendant has . . . willfully misrepresented any information required . . . to be disclosed to [the plaintiff] and the information . . . is material to [a claim under the Act], the action may be brought at any time within two years after [the plaintiff's] discovery . . . of the misrepresentation"-is not governed by a general rule that the limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know that she was injured.
199
[Syllabus]
199 BAKER BY THOMAS V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 522 U.S. 222 (1998)
[Syllabus]
199 GONZAGA UNIV. V. DOE
[Syllabus]
Respondent's action is foreclosed because the relevant provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 create no personal rights to enforce under 42 U. S. C. §1983.
199 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.
199
[Syllabus]
199 MEDTRONIC, INC. V. LOHR ET VIR, 518 U.S. 470 (1996).
[Syllabus]
199 BENEFICIAL NAT. BANK V. ANDERSON
[Syllabus]
This Court has long held that section 30 of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 85-86, creates an exclusive federal cause of action and an exclusive federal remedy for usury claims by borrowers against national banks, preempting state law under the doctrine of ordinary preemption. Borrowers filed this case against a national bank in state court, claiming violation of state usury law, and the national bank removed the case to federal district court, where a motion to remand was denied. On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ordered the district court to remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and explicitly disagreed with decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit holding that section 30 completely preempts state usury claims against national banks and thus permits removal of cases asserting state usury laws against them. The question presented is:
199 STAUB V. PROCTOR HOSPITAL
[Syllabus]
199 BECK V. PRUPIS
[Syllabus]
Whether an employee who is terminated for both blowing the whistle on and refusing to participate in a pattern of predicated acts of racketeering forbidden by the Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act (""RICO""), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., may assert a civil RICO conspiracy claim, where he has been injured by an overt act in furtherance of the RICO conspiracy, which overt act is not, itself, a predicate act of racketeering (a question as to which the circuit courts of appeal are in direct conflict).
199 WEISGRAM  V.  MARLEY CO.
[Syllabus]
1. If the District Court erred in admitting the testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts and the relief to be awarded is a new trial, is the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's decision in conflict with its own precedent and decisions of other United States Courts of Appeal if it granted judgment as a matter of law to Marley Company after excising portions of Plaintiffs' experts' testimony?
199 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.
199 GRATZ V. BOLLINGER
[Syllabus]
1. Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981?
199 CENTRAL GREEN CO. V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that the Flood Control Act of 1928 immunizes Respondent from his suit?"
199 UNITED STATES V. BEGGERLY, 524 U.S. 38 (1998)
[Syllabus]
199
[Syllabus]
199 CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC V. BILLING
[Syllabus]
199 STATE OIL CO. V. KHAN, 522 U.S. 3 (1997)
[Syllabus]
199
[Syllabus]
199 UNITED STATES V. JICARILLA APACHE NATION
[Syllabus]
199
[Syllabus]
199
[Syllabus]
199 BE&K CONSTR. CO. V. NLRB
[Syllabus]
Respondent National Labor Relations Board lacked authority to find that petitioner violated federal labor law by prosecuting against respondent unions an unsuccessful lawsuit with a retaliatory motive.
199
[Syllabus]
199 SPENCER V. KEMNA, 523 U.S. 1 (1998)
[Syllabus]
199
[Syllabus]
199 BUCKMAN CO. V. PLAINTIFFS LEGAL COMM.
[Syllabus]
Whether federal law preempts state-law tort claims alleging fraud on the Food and Drug Administration during the regulatory process for marketing clearance applicable to certain devices.
199 EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. ALLAPATTAH SERVICES, INC.
[Syllabus]
199 CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLA. V. LEAVITT
[Syllabus]
199 FITZGERALD V. BARNSTABLE SCHOOL COMM.
[Syllabus]
199 LEDBETTER V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.
[Syllabus]
199 GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES OPERATIONS, S.A.V.BROWN
[Syllabus]
199 JAFFEE V. REDMOND, 518 U.S. 1 (1996)
[Syllabus]
199 REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES V. PIMENTEL
[Syllabus]
199 CONNICK V. THOMPSON
[Syllabus]
199 CUYAHOGA FALLS V. BUCKEYE COMMUNITYHOPE FOUNDATION
[Syllabus]
Respondents have presented no genuine issues of material fact with regard to whether Cuyahoga Falls violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses by submitting to voters a facially neutral referendum petition calling for the repeal of a municipal ordinance authorizing construction of a low-income housing complex.
199 LV. DEWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
[Syllabus]
199
[Syllabus]
199 BOGAN V. SCOTT-HARRIS, 523 U.S. 44 (1998)
[Syllabus]
199 ORTIZ V. JORDAN
[Syllabus]
199 SISSON V. RUBY, 497 U.S. 358 (1990)
[Syllabus]
199 WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. DUKES
[Syllabus]
199
[Syllabus]
199 ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
199
[Syllabus]
199 BRIDGE V. PHOENIX BOND & INDEMNITY CO.
[Syllabus]
199 NORFOLK SHIPBUILDING & DRYDOCK CORP.V. GARRIS
[Syllabus]
The general maritime cause of action recognized in Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 374, 409__for dealth caused by violation of maritime duties__is available for the negligent breach of a maritime dutry of care.
199 VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES V.UNITED STATES EX REL. STEVENS
[Syllabus]
1. Whether a State is a ""person"" subject to liability under 31 U.S.C. 3729(a) of the False Claims Act? 2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment precludes a private relator from commencing and prosecuting a False Claims Act suit against an unconsenting State?
199 LOCKE V. DAVEY
[Syllabus]
The Washington Constitution provides that no public money shall be appropriated or applied to religious instruction. Following this constitutional command, Washington does not grant college scholarships to otherwise eligible students who are pursuing a degree in theology. Does the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment require the state to fund religious instruction, if it provides college scholarships for secular instruction?
199 SKINNER V. SWITZER
[Syllabus]
199 GEIER V. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred by holding, in direct conflict with five state courts of last resort, that an automobile manufacturer's compliance with a federal motor vehicle safety standard that permits, but does not require, installation of airbags in passenger vehicles preempts state common law claims that an automobile was defectively designed because it lacked an airbag? 2. Whether the D.C. Circuit erred by holding that, because this Court engaged in implied preemption analysis in Freightliner Corp. V. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280 (1995), the lower courts are free to disregard the limitations on implied preemption most recently emphasized in Cipollone V. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992), to find that a Federal motor vehicle safety standard promulgated pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381-1431, impliedly preempts common law claims, even thought the Act expressly provides that ""compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard … does not exempt any person from any liability under common law''?
199 BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH, 524 U.S. 742 (1998)
[Syllabus]
199
[Syllabus]
199 ASTRA USA, INC. V.SANTA CLARA COUNTY
[Syllabus]
199 BREUER V. JIMS CONCRETE OF BREVARD, INC.
[Syllabus]
Whether an action commenced in state court under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq., (theFLSA), can be removed by the defendant to a federal district court, even though the FLSA expressly provides that the case can be maintained in state court? Whether the Eleventh Circuit's Interpretation of the word maintained as used in the jurisdictional provisions of the FLSA conflicts with this Court's pronounced definition of the word maintain' to be used when construing federal statutes? When the conflict, disparity and deadlock of opinion between the Eleventh and First Circuits and the Eighth Circuit, and between dozens of district courts around the country, regarding whether FLSA actions commenced in state court are removable to federal court, warrants that this Court, as suggested by the Eleventh Circuit in its opinion below, grant this petition to resolve the question once and for all in order to bring uniformity to the federal courts, and eliminate widespread disparity between litigants in our federal system.
199 VAN V. GOLDSTEIN
[Syllabus]
199 BEHRENS V. PELLETIER, 516 U.S. 299 (1996).
[Syllabus]
199 562 U.S. ____ (2011)
[Syllabus]
199 TENNESSEE STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORPORATION V. HOOD
[Syllabus]
199 LAPIDES V. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. SYSTEMOF GA.
[Syllabus]
A State waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity when it removes a case from state court to federal court.
199 SWINT V. CHAMBERS COUNTY COMM'N, 514 U.S. 35 (1995).
[Syllabus]
199 ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP.
[Syllabus]
199
[Syllabus]
199 MEGHRIG ET AL. V. KFC WESTERN, INC., 516 U.S. 479 (1996).
[Syllabus]
199 ROTELLA V. WOOD
[Syllabus]
In calculating the statute of limitations for a civil RICO claim, does the cause of action accrue when the injury alone happens, or when the plaintiff has both suffered the injury and discovered that it results from a pattern of RICO activity?
199 CHAVEZ V. MARTINEZ
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel Correctly characterized the Supreme Court's Fifth Amendment discussion in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), as non-binding dicta and thereby ignored its holding favorable to petitioner. 2. Whether a violation of the Fifth Amendment, potentially resulting in an award of civil damages, occurs at the time of the purported coercive the constitutionally violative statement in a criminal proceeding. 3. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel correctly held that the conduct of this investigating officer was so offensive as to deny him qualified immunity.
199 MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND SUPPORT FOR ARMEDFORCES OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN V.ELAHI
[Syllabus]
199 GRUPO MEXICANO DE DESARROLLO, S. A. V. ALLIANCE BOND FUND, INC.
[Syllabus]
199 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]