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 disability returned 67 results.

1000 BLACK & DECKER DISABILITY PLAN V. NORD
[Syllabus]
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that an ERISA disability plan administrator's determination of disability is subject to the treating physician rule and, therefore, the plan administrator is required to accept a treating physician's opinion of disability as controlling unless the plan administrator rebuts that opinion in writing based upon substantial evidence on the record.
1000 BLACK & DECKER DISABILITY PLAN V. NORD
[Syllabus]
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that an ERISA disability plan administrator's determination of disability is subject to the treating physician rule and, therefore, the plan administrator is required to accept a treating physician's opinion of disability as controlling unless the plan administrator rebuts that opinion in writing based upon substantial evidence on the record.
807 METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE CO. V. RAMBO, 117 S.CT. 1953, 138 L.ED.2D 327 (1997).
[Syllabus]
725 TOYOTA MOTOR MFG., KY., INC. V. WILLIAMS
[Syllabus]
The Sixth Circuit did not apply the proper standard in determining that respondent was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 because that court analyzed only a limited class of manual tasks and failed to ask whether respondent's impairments prevented or restricted her from performing tasks that are of central importance to most people's daily lives.
652 KENTUCKY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS V. EEOC
[Syllabus]
652 UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. WARD
[Syllabus]
611 SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES, INC.
[Syllabus]
611 CLEVELAND V. POLICY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CORP.
[Syllabus]
564 ALBERTSONS, INC. V. KIRKINGBURG
[Syllabus]
564 METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE CO. V. RAMBO, 515 U.S. 291 (1995).
[Syllabus]
564 FORNEY V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 266 (1998)
[Syllabus]
564 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?
564
[Syllabus]
564 OLMSTEAD V. L. C.
[Syllabus]
564 PGA TOUR, INC. V. MARTIN
[Syllabus]
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits petitioner from denying golfer Casey Martin equal access to its golf tours on the basis of a disability that prevents him from walking a golf course; allowing Martin to use a golf cart, despite petitioner's walking requirement, is not a modification that would "fundamentally alter the nature" of petitioner's tours.
504 HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. V. ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO.
[Syllabus]
504
[Syllabus]
504 SULLIVAN V. FINKELSTEIN, 496 U.S. 617 (1990)
[Syllabus]
504 BRAGDON V. ABBOTT, 524 U.S. 624 (1998)
[Syllabus]
435 HARDT V. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INS. CO.
[Syllabus]
435 SHINSEKI V. SANDERS
[Syllabus]
435 BARNHART V. THOMAS
[Syllabus]
Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act define disability as the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act further provides that a claimant shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(B). Under the Act, work which exists in the national economy means work which exists in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions in the country. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(B). The question presented is: Whether the Commissioner of Social Security may determine that a claimant is not disabled within the meaning of the Act because the claimant remains physically and mentally able to do her previous work, without considering whether that particular job exists in significant numbers in the national economy.
435 AT&T CORP. V. HULTEEN
[Syllabus]
435 US AIRWAYS, INC. V. BARNETT
[Syllabus]
An employer's showing that an "accommodation" requested under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 conflicts with seniority rules is ordinarily sufficient to show that the accommodation is not "reasonable"; but the employee remains free to show special circumstances that make a seniority rule exception reasonable in the particular case.
435 CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. V. ECHAZABAL
[Syllabus]
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 permits an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation authorizing an employer to refuse to hire a disabled individual because his performance on the job would endanger his own health.
435 SMITH V. DOE
[Syllabus]
Because Alaska's "Megan's Law" is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
343
[Syllabus]
343 METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. GLENN
[Syllabus]
343
[Syllabus]
343 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.
343 PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. YESKEY, 524 U.S. 206 (1998)
[Syllabus]
343 MURPHY V. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
[Syllabus]
343 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."
217 SIMS V. APFEL
[Syllabus]
May a federal court, without any statutory or regulatory authority in support thereof, and contrary to the informal non-adversarial nature of the Social Security administrative appeal process, impose an ''issue exhaistion"" requirement upon Social Security claimants in federal court to bar issues that were not specifically raised by the claimant during the administrative appeal process."
217 BARNHART V. WALTON
[Syllabus]
The Social Security Administration's interpretations of the Social Security Act provisions that authorize payment of Social Security disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income to individuals who have an "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable . . . impairment . . . which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months," 42 U. S. C. §423(d)(1)(A); accord, §1382c(a)(3)(A), are lawful.
217 LV. DEWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
[Syllabus]
217 SPECTOR V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD.
[Syllabus]
217 MAYO FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL ED. AND RESEARCH V.UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
217 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
217 RAYTHEON CO. V. HERNANDEZ
[Syllabus]
Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act confers preferential rehire rights on employees lawfully terminated for misconduct, such as illegal drug use.
217 ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL. V. EVANS ET AL., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
[Syllabus]
217 SCARBOROUGH V. PRINCIPI
[Syllabus]
Whether a complete application for attorney fees and other expenses under The Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(B), containing all the essential elements, must be filed within thirty days to confer jurisdiction on the court.
217 WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTHSERVS. V. GUARDIANSHIP ESTATE OF KEFFELER
[Syllabus]
Washington State's use of respondent foster children's Social Security benefits to reimburse the State for expenses in caring for respondents did not violate 42 U. S. C. §407(a).
217 INS V. ST. CYR
[Syllabus]
Amendments that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 made to the Immigration and Nationality Act did not affect the federal courts' habeas jurisdiction to decide pure questions of law; nor did they affect the availability of discretionary relief from deportation for aliens whose convictions were obtained through plea agreements before the amendments' effective dates.
217 GISBRECHT V. BARNHART
[Syllabus]
Title 42 U. S. C. §406(b) does not displace contingent-fee agreements between Social Security benefits claimants and their counsel within the ceiling set forth in §406(b)(1)(A); instead it instructs courts to review for reasonableness fees yielded by those agreements.
217 UNITED STATES V. GEORGIA
[Syllabus]
217 UNITED STATES V. BEAN
[Syllabus]
The absence of an actual denial by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms of a felon's petition for relief from firearms disabilities precludes judicial review under 18 U. S. C. §925(c).
217 LANE V. PENA, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., 518 U.S. 187 (1996).
[Syllabus]
217 DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DEP'T OF LABOR V. NEWPORT
[Syllabus]
217 CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST. V.GARRET F.
[Syllabus]
217 HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 117 S.CT. 1871, 138 L.ED.2D 135 (1997).
[Syllabus]
217 LEWIS V. CASEY, 516 U.S. 804 (1996)
[Syllabus]
217
[Syllabus]
217 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.
217 INGALLS SHIPBUILDING, INC. V. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, 519 U.S. 248 (1997)
[Syllabus]
217 HUDSON V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 93 (1997)
[Syllabus]
217 WINKELMAN V. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST.
[Syllabus]
217
[Syllabus]
217 CITY NEWS & NOVELTY, INC. V. WAUKESHA
[Syllabus]
Is a licensing scheme which acts as a prior restraint required to contain explicit language which prevents injury to a speaker's rights from want of a prompt judicial decision?"
217 U.S. V. BROCKAMP, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MCGILL, DECEASED, 519 U.S. 347 (1997)
[Syllabus]
217
[Syllabus]
217 HENDERSON V. SHINSEKI
[Syllabus]
217
[Syllabus]
217 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.
217
[Syllabus]
217 WRIGHT V. UNIVERSAL MARITIME SERVICE CORP.
[Syllabus]
217 SKILLING V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
217 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSN. V. SMITH
[Syllabus]