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 disease returned 15 results.

1000 CLARK V. ARIZONA
[Syllabus]
644 BRAGDON V. ABBOTT, 524 U.S. 624 (1998)
[Syllabus]
604 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.
557 METRO NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD CO. V. BUCKLEY, 521 U.S. 424 (1997)
[Syllabus]
429
[Syllabus]
339 AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC. V. WINDSOR, 117 S.CT. 2231, 138 L.ED.2D 689 (1997).
[Syllabus]
339
[Syllabus]
214 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.
214 GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. JOINER, 522 U.S. 136 (1997)
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 FDA V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP.
[Syllabus]
Whether, given FDA's findings, tobacco products are subject to regulation under the Act as ""drugs"" and ""devices.
214 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.
214 MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA
[Syllabus]
214 KAWAAUHAU V. GEIGER, 523 U.S. 57 (1998)
[Syllabus]
214 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.