Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query estate or trust returned 138 results.

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

	C.I.R. V. ESTATE OF HUBERT, 520 U.S. 93 (1997) [Syllabus]
	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).
	STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	EVANS V. ABNEY [Opinion]
	EVANS V. NEWTON []
	STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	STEARNS V. MINNESOTA [Opinion]
	KNIGHT V. COMMISSIONER [Syllabus]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	HARRIS TRUST AND SAV. BANK V. SALOMONSMITH BARNEY INC. [Syllabus] Whether a non-fiduciary party in interest with respect to an employee benefit plan that engages in a prohibited transaction, as defined in Section 406(a) (1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (""ERISA""), 29 U.S.C. 1106(a)(1), with the plan can be sued under ERISA 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3), for ""appropriate equitable relief,"" including restitution."
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Syllabus]
	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.
	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Opinion]
	STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	U.S. V. BROCKAMP, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MCGILL, DECEASED, 519 U.S. 347 (1997) [Syllabus]
	EC TERM OF YEARS TRUST V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ESTATE OF ROMANII, 523 U.S. 517 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ESTATE OF COWART V. NICKLOS DRILLING, 505 U.S. 469 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC. [Concurrence]
	ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC. [Opinion]
	ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Dissent]
	BANK OF AMERICA NAT. TRUST AND SAV. ASSN. V.203 NORTH LASALLE STREET PARTNERSHIP [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMIN. V. FIRST NAT. BANK & TRUST CO., 522 U.S. 479 (1998) [Syllabus]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Syllabus]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Dissent]
	BANK ONE CHICAGO, N. A. V. MIDWEST BANK & TRUST CO., 516 U.S. 264 (1996). [Syllabus]
	DRYE V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the interest of an heir in an estate constitutes 'property ' or a 'right to property' to which the federal tax lien attaches under 26 U.S.C 6321 even though the heir thereafter purports retroactively to disclaim the interest under state law.
	BAY AREA LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING PENSION TRUST FUND V. FERBAR CORP. OF CALIFORNIA, 522 U.S. 192 (1997) [Syllabus]
	TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Concurrence]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Concurrence]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Syllabus]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Dissent]
	PHILLIPS V. WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION [Opinion]
	LOCAL 144 NURSING HOME PENSION FUND V. DEMISAY, 508 U.S. 581 (1993). [Syllabus]
	KIRCHER V. PUTNAM FUNDS TRUST [Syllabus]
	JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS. V. HARRIS TRUST & SAV. BANK, 510 U.S. 86 (1993). [Syllabus]
	STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [Opinion]
	CONCRETE PIPE & PRODUCTS OF CAL. V. CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST, 508 U.S. 602 (1993) [Syllabus]
	BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. V. SPANNAUS [Opinion]
	EVANS V. ABNEY [Syllabus]
	BFP V. RESOLUTION TRUST CORP., 114 S. CT. 1757, 128 L. ED. 2D 556 (1994). [Syllabus]
	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.
	UNITED STATES V. IRVINE, 511 U.S. 224 (1994). [Syllabus]
	LOEWE V. LAWLOR [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. PINK [Opinion]
	ENGEL V. VITALE [Concurrence]
	TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. PINK [Dissent]
	EVANS V. NEWTON [Dissent]
	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.
	WARD'S COVE PACKING CO., INC. V. ANTONIO [Opinion]
	ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY [Opinion]
	CASS COUNTY V. LEECH LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, 524 U.S. 103 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS. CO. V. KNUDSON [Syllabus] Because petitioners are seeking legal relief-the imposition of personal liability on respondents for a contractual obligation to pay money-this action is not authorized by §502(a)(3) of ERISA, which prescribes a suit for "appropriate equitable relief."
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Concurrence]
	LOEWE V. LAWLOR [Syllabus]
	PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. PROPRIETORS OF WARREN BRIDGE [Dissent]
	TWINING V. STATE [Syllabus]
	POWELL V. MCCORMACK [Opinion]
	NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP. [Opinion]
	ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY [Concurrence]
	A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	STEARNS V. MINNESOTA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	EVANS V. NEWTON [Dissent]
	TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. E. C. KNIGHT COMPANY [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. BELMONT [Concurrence]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	EVANS V. NEWTON [Opinion]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Dissent]
	NASHVILLE, CHATTANOOGA & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY CO. V. WALLACE [Opinion]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR V. KLAMATHWATER USERS PROTECTIVE ASSN. [Syllabus] Documents passing between Indian Tribes and the Interior Department addressing tribal interests subject to state and federal water-allocation proceedings are not exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act as "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters" under FOIA Exemption 5.
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. POTAWATOMI TRIBE, 498 U.S. 505 (1991) [Syllabus]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Opinion]
	MONROE V. PAPE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. E. C. KNIGHT COMPANY [Syllabus]
	BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	EX PARTE GARLAND [Dissent]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE [Dissent]
	MARTIN V. WILKS [Dissent]
	BRANZBURG V. HAYES [Opinion]
	ENGEL V. VITALE [Dissent]
	LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Opinion]
	SMITH V. ALLWRIGHT [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. CALANDRA [Dissent]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	EVANS V. ABNEY [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. JACKSON [Opinion]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MONROE V. PAPE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HINCK V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	LINCOLN V. VIGIL, 508 U.S. 182 (1993). [Syllabus]
	STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	BP AMERICA PRODUCTION CO. V. BURTON [Syllabus]
	IDAHO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] The National Government holds title, in trust for the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, to lands underlying portions of Lake Coeur d'Alene and the St. Joe River.
	MERTENS V. HEWITT ASSOCS., 508 U.S. 248 (1993). [Syllabus]
	GASPERINI V. CENTER FOR HUMANITIES, INC., 517 U.S. 1102 (1996). [Syllabus]
	RICE V. CAYETANO [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution permit the adoption of an explicitracial classification that restricts the right to vote in statewide elections for state officials.
	[Syllabus]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. O'HAGAN, 117 S.CT. 2199, 138 L.ED.2D 724 (1997). [Syllabus]
	PHILLIPS V. WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION, 524 U.S. 156 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. LEGAL FOUNDATION OF WASH. [Syllabus] Interest earned on client funds deposited in IOLTA accounts that is transferred to a different owner for a legitimate public use may constitute a per se taking requiring "just compensation" to the client under the Fifth Amendment; but because such compensation is measured by the owner's pecuniary interest, which is zero whenever Washington's IOLTA law is obeyed, there is no violation of the Just Compensation Clause here.
	KIOWA TRIBE OF OK V. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) [Syllabus]
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. SAC & FOX NATION, 508 U.S. 114 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SOUTH DAKOTA V. BOURLAND, 508 U.S. 679 (1993). [Syllabus]
	PATTERSON V. SHUMATE, 504 U.S. 753 (1992). [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER V. KEYSTONE CONSOL. INDUS., 508 U.S. 152 (1993). [Syllabus]
	ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. V. SPANNAUS [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BROWN [Dissent]
	LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Dissent]
	INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC. V. LEE [Opinion]
	BROWN V. HARTLAGE [Opinion]
	PHILLIPS V. WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION [Syllabus]
	TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Concurrence]
	CONNICK V. MYERS [Opinion]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Opinion]
	WARD'S COVE PACKING CO., INC. V. ANTONIO [Dissent]
	SANTOSKY V. KRAMER [Dissent]
	REID V. COVERT [Opinion]
	MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT [Opinion]
	HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION [Opinion]
	FRISBY V. SCHULTZ [Opinion]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	STEARNS V. MINNESOTA [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BREWSTER [Dissent]
	TALBOT V. JANSON []
	PHILLIPS V. WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION [Dissent]
	HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY V. MIDKIFF [Opinion]
	SHELLEY V. KRAEMER [Opinion]
	MISSOURI V. JENKINS [Opinion]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Concurrence]
	WOOLEY V. MAYNARD [Dissent]
	HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL [Opinion]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Dissent]
	EVANS V. NEWTON [Syllabus]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	YATES V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. BREWSTER [Opinion]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Opinion]
	MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND [Opinion]
	PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CO. V. NEW YORK CITY [Dissent]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Opinion]
	CLARK V. COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NONVIOLENCE [Dissent]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN [Opinion]
	EVANS V. ABNEY [Dissent]
	GOSS V. LOPEZ [Opinion]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN [Opinion]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. PINK [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concurrence]
	STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [Syllabus]
	FUENTES V. SHEVIN [Opinion]
	PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CO. V. NEW YORK CITY [Opinion]
	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Dissent]
	LOCKHART V. FRETWELL, 506 U.S. 364 (1993). [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.
	JAFFEE V. REDMOND, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) [Syllabus]
	C & L ENTERPRISES, INC. V. CITIZEN BANDPOTAWATOMI TRIBE OF OKLA.SYLLABUS [Syllabus] Under the agreement respondent Tribe proposed and signed, the Tribe clearly consented to arbitration and to the enforcement of arbitral awards in Oklahoma state court; the Tribe thereby waived its sovereign immunity from petitioner contractor's state-court suit to enforce its arbitration award.
	ROUSEY V. JACOWAY [Syllabus]
	INTERNATIONAL SOC. FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS V. LEE, 505 U.S. 672 (1992). [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 488 U.S. 1041 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES NAT'L BANK OF ORE. V. INDEPENDENT INS. AGENTS, 508 U.S. 439 (1993) [Syllabus]
	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.
	ATHERTON V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 519 U.S. 213 (1997). [Syllabus]
	DUSENBERY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] The Government's sending of notice by certified mail of a cash forfeiture to petitioner's place of incarceration satisfied his due process rights.
	BARNHILL V. JOHNSON, 503 U.S. 393 (1992). [Syllabus]
	KOKKONEN V. GUARDIAN LIFE INS., 511 U.S. 375 (1994). [Syllabus]
	GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS, INC. V. DARUEENGINEERING & MFG. [Syllabus]
	CHANDLER V. MILLER, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) [Syllabus]
	AMOCO PRODUCTION CO. V. SOUTHERN UTE TRIBE [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES SHOE CORP., 523 U.S. 360 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MONTANA V. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, 523 U.S. 696 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RIVET V. REGIONS BANK OF LA., 522 U.S. 470 (1998) [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN NAT. RED CROSS V. S. G., 505 U.S. 247 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SUN-DIAMOND GROWERS OF CAL. [Syllabus]
	CHAMBERS V. NASCO, INC., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORPORATION V. HOOD [Syllabus]
	BELL ATLANTIC CORP. V. TWOMBLY [Syllabus]
	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:
	HAGEN V. UTAH, 510 U.S. 399 (1994). [Syllabus]
	LITTON FINANCIAL PRINTING DIVISION V. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 507 U.S. 746 (1993). [Syllabus]
	GILBERT, PRESIDENT, EAST STROUDSBURG UNIVERSITY V. HOMAR, 520 U.S. 924 (1997) [Syllabus]
	EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. SAUDI BASIC INDUSTRIES CORP. [Syllabus]
	CARTER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether bank larceny, 18 U.S.C. 2113(b) (Supp.IV 1998), is a lesser included offense of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113 (a)."
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. CHICKASAW NATION, 515 U.S. 450 (1995). [Syllabus]
	TEST TWO V. TEST TWO [Syllabus]
	HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. V. ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO. [Syllabus]
	LOCKHEED CORP. ET AL. V. SPINK, 517 U.S. 882 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ELDRED V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus] The Copyright Term Extension Act, which enlarges the duration of existing and future copyrights by 20 years, does not exceed Congress' power under the Constitution's Copyright Clause and does not violate the First Amendment.
	HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. V. JACOBSON [Syllabus]
	CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND [Dissent]
	EX PARTE MILLIGAN [Opinion]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CALIFORNIA V. CARNEY [Dissent]
	REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA V. WHITE [Opinion]
	ENGEL V. VITALE [Opinion]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Opinion]
	INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC. V. LEE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	LEHMAN V. CITY OF SHAKER HEIGHTS [Dissent]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Opinion]
	LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Opinion]
	BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH [Opinion]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Opinion]
	PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS [Opinion]
	NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BOARD OF REGENTS OF STATE COLLEGES V. ROTH [Opinion]
	BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. BROWN [Opinion]
	CRAIG V. BOREN [Dissent]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH [Opinion]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Syllabus]
	ULLMANN V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	WOODS V. CLOYD W. MILLER CO. [Opinion]
	SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT V. BARNWELL BROTHERS, INC. [Opinion]
	TEXAS V. WHITE [Syllabus]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	NOLLAN V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION [Dissent]
	IN RE GAULT [Opinion]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Dissent]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Dissent]
	ULLMANN V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA V. WHITE [Dissent]
	HEFFRON V. INTERNATIONAL SOC'Y FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS [Opinion]
	WOOLEY V. MAYNARD [Opinion]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concurrence]
	PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS [Opinion]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. BUTTON [Opinion]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Concurrence]
	THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS [Opinion]
	EX PARTE BAKELITE CORPORATION [Opinion]
	SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Opinion]
	MCCLESKEY V. KEMP [Dissent]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	JONES V. ALFRED H. MAYER CO. [Opinion]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC. V. LEE [Syllabus]
	NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	ORR V. ORR [Opinion]
	CLARK V. COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NONVIOLENCE [Opinion]
	NOLLAN V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION [Dissent]
	PHILLIPS V. WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. PARADISE [Opinion]
	INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC. V. LEE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ADLER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	WICKARD V. FILBURN [Opinion]
	EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. LOVETT [Opinion]
	BRANZBURG V. HAYES [Dissent]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	NIX V. WHITESIDE [Opinion]
	WARD'S COVE PACKING CO., INC. V. ANTONIO [Dissent]
	NEW YORK V. FERBER [Opinion]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Dissent]
	LOCKETT V. OHIO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. PINK [Syllabus]
	GLIDDEN CO. V. ZDANOK [Opinion]
	ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MARTIN V. WILKS [Syllabus]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Opinion]
	ROMER V. EVANS [Opinion]
	BRANZBURG V. HAYES [Dissent]
	MARTIN V. WILKS [Opinion]
	ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON [Opinion]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. CLAIBORNE HARDWARE CO. [Opinion]
	PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS [Concurrence]
	REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA V. WHITE [Dissent]
	ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. V. SPANNAUS [Dissent]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	PLESSY V. FERGUSON [Dissent]
	******** [Dissent]
	NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. [Opinion]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. BUTTON [Dissent]
	SCHICK V. REED [Opinion]
	GRAYNED V. CITY OF ROCKFORD [Dissent]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CALDER V. BULL []
	BAKER V. CARR [Opinion]
	STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	GRAYNED V. CITY OF ROCKFORD [Opinion]
	A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Concurrence]
	NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O. [Opinion]
	MORRISON V. OLSON [Dissent]
	GEORGIA V. MCCOLLUM [Opinion]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Dissent]
	WILSON V. NEW [Opinion]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Opinion]
	GREER V. SPOCK [Opinion]
	ROSENBLOOM V. METROMEDIA [Opinion]
	MARBURY V. MADISON [Opinion]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. WATSON [Dissent]
	APTHEKER V. SECRETARY OF STATE [Dissent]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Dissent]
	CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER V. MANHART [Opinion]
	CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC. [Dissent]
	LOCKETT V. OHIO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ADLER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK [Opinion]
	SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Dissent]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	NGUYEN V. INS [Dissent]
	ADAIR V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ROMER V. EVANS [Dissent]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	STONE V. GRAHAM [Dissent]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Concurrence]
	DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. UNITED STATES HOUSE [Opinion]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	DOE V. BOLTON [Opinion]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concurrence]
	MCDANIEL V. PATY [Opinion]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. CALANDRA [Opinion]
	AFROYIM V. RUSK [Dissent]
	BOND V. FLOYD [Opinion]
	BATSON V. KENTUCKY [Concurrence]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES [Opinion]
	PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS [Syllabus]
	TEXAS V. JOHNSON [Dissent]
	BEAL V. DOE [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. LOVETT [Concurrence]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	PENNOYER V. NEFF [Dissent]
	GUINN & BEAL V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Dissent]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	MARSH V. CHAMBERS [Dissent]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Concurrence]
	LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Concurrence]
	CIVIL RIGHTS CASES [Dissent]
	INTERNATIONAL SHOE V. STATE OF WASHINGTON [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MINOR V. HAPPERSETT [Opinion]
	BARENBLATT V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	NIX V. WHITESIDE [Concurrence]
	POWERS V. OHIO [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Opinion]
	BREWER V. WILLIAMS [Concurrence]
	VILLAGE OF EUCLID V. AMBLER REALTY CO. [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Dissent]
	CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. V. BUTTS [Opinion]
	WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH [Dissent]
	ESCOBEDO V. ILLINOIS [Opinion]
	NOLLAN V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION [Opinion]
	C.I.R. V. ESTATE OF HUBERT, 520 U.S. 93 (1997) [Syllabus]
	DRYE V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the interest of an heir in an estate constitutes 'property ' or a 'right to property' to which the federal tax lien attaches under 26 U.S.C 6321 even though the heir thereafter purports retroactively to disclaim the interest under state law.
	UNITED STATES V. IRVINE, 511 U.S. 224 (1994). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BANK OF AMERICA NAT. TRUST AND SAV. ASSN. V.203 NORTH LASALLE STREET PARTNERSHIP [Syllabus]
	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).
	PATTERSON V. SHUMATE, 504 U.S. 753 (1992). [Syllabus]
	AMOCO PRODUCTION CO. V. SOUTHERN UTE TRIBE [Syllabus]
	ROUSEY V. JACOWAY [Syllabus]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	RIVET V. REGIONS BANK OF LA., 522 U.S. 470 (1998) [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORPORATION V. HOOD [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. LEGAL FOUNDATION OF WASH. [Syllabus] Interest earned on client funds deposited in IOLTA accounts that is transferred to a different owner for a legitimate public use may constitute a per se taking requiring "just compensation" to the client under the Fifth Amendment; but because such compensation is measured by the owner's pecuniary interest, which is zero whenever Washington's IOLTA law is obeyed, there is no violation of the Just Compensation Clause here.
	KNIGHT V. COMMISSIONER [Syllabus]
	HARRIS TRUST AND SAV. BANK V. SALOMONSMITH BARNEY INC. [Syllabus] Whether a non-fiduciary party in interest with respect to an employee benefit plan that engages in a prohibited transaction, as defined in Section 406(a) (1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (""ERISA""), 29 U.S.C. 1106(a)(1), with the plan can be sued under ERISA 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3), for ""appropriate equitable relief,"" including restitution."
	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.
	UNITED STATES V. ESTATE OF ROMANII, 523 U.S. 517 (1998) [Syllabus]
	EC TERM OF YEARS TRUST V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMIN. V. FIRST NAT. BANK & TRUST CO., 522 U.S. 479 (1998) [Syllabus]
	U.S. V. BROCKAMP, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MCGILL, DECEASED, 519 U.S. 347 (1997) [Syllabus]
	BAY AREA LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING PENSION TRUST FUND V. FERBAR CORP. OF CALIFORNIA, 522 U.S. 192 (1997) [Syllabus]
	BANK ONE CHICAGO, N. A. V. MIDWEST BANK & TRUST CO., 516 U.S. 264 (1996). [Syllabus]
	JAFFEE V. REDMOND, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) [Syllabus]
	CARTER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether bank larceny, 18 U.S.C. 2113(b) (Supp.IV 1998), is a lesser included offense of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113 (a)."
	HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. V. JACOBSON [Syllabus]
	BARNHILL V. JOHNSON, 503 U.S. 393 (1992). [Syllabus]
	JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS. V. HARRIS TRUST & SAV. BANK, 510 U.S. 86 (1993). [Syllabus]
	LOCAL 144 NURSING HOME PENSION FUND V. DEMISAY, 508 U.S. 581 (1993). [Syllabus]
	KIRCHER V. PUTNAM FUNDS TRUST [Syllabus]
	ESTATE OF COWART V. NICKLOS DRILLING, 505 U.S. 469 (1992). [Syllabus]
	CONCRETE PIPE & PRODUCTS OF CAL. V. CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST, 508 U.S. 602 (1993) [Syllabus]
	BFP V. RESOLUTION TRUST CORP., 114 S. CT. 1757, 128 L. ED. 2D 556 (1994). [Syllabus]
	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.
	RALEIGH V. ILLINOIS DEPT. OF REVENUE [Syllabus] Should tax claims in bankruptcy be given the advantage of placing the burden of proof on an objecting trustee, in contrast to the rule applicable to the claims of other creditors?"
	OLYMPIC AIRWAYS V. HUSAIN [Syllabus] Whether the accident condition precedent to air carrier liability for a passenger's death under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention is satisfied when a passenger's pre-existing medical condition is aggravated by exposure to a normal condition in the aircraft cabin, even if the carrier's negligence were a link in the chain, of causation? The Ninth Circuit's answer to this question in the affirmative directly conflicts with the Third and Eleventh Circuit decisions in Abramson v. Japan Airlines, Co., Ltd., 739 F.2d 130 (3d Cir. 1984), cert. Denied, 470 U.S. 1059 (1985) and Krys v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 119 F.3d 1515 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1111 (1998), and is contrary to the Court's decision in Air France. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (1985).
	SPRIETSMA V. MERCURY MARINE [Syllabus] A state common-law tort action seeking damages from the manufacturer of an outboard motor is not pre-empted by the enactment of the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 or by the Coast Guard's decision not to promulgate a regulation requiring propeller guards on motorboats.
	COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO V. LEWIS, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) [Syllabus]
	DOOLEY V. KOREAN AIR LINES CO., 524 U.S. 116 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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.
	GEISSAL V. MOORE MEDICAL CORP., 524 U.S. 74 (1998) [Syllabus]
	YAMAHA MOTOR CORP., U. S. A., V. CALHOUN, 516 U.S. 199 (1996) [Syllabus]
	JEFFERSON V. CITY OF TARRANT, ALA., 522 U.S. 75 (1997) [Syllabus]
	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.
	LAMIE V. UNITED STATES TRUSTEE [Syllabus] Does 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(l) authorize a court to award fees to a debtor's attorney?
	GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS. CO. V. KNUDSON [Syllabus] Because petitioners are seeking legal relief-the imposition of personal liability on respondents for a contractual obligation to pay money-this action is not authorized by §502(a)(3) of ERISA, which prescribes a suit for "appropriate equitable relief."
	CASS COUNTY V. LEECH LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, 524 U.S. 103 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WATTERS V. WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CARLTON, 512 U.S. 26 (1994). [Syllabus]
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. POTAWATOMI TRIBE, 498 U.S. 505 (1991) [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR V. KLAMATHWATER USERS PROTECTIVE ASSN. [Syllabus] Documents passing between Indian Tribes and the Interior Department addressing tribal interests subject to state and federal water-allocation proceedings are not exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act as "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters" under FOIA Exemption 5.
	FARREY V. SANDERFOOT, 500 U.S. 291 (1991) [Syllabus]
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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.
	CAMPS NEWFOUND/OWATONNA, INC. V. TOWN OF HARRISON, 520 U.S. 564 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CONNECTICUT V. DOEHR, 501 U.S. 1 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MILES V. APEX MARINE CORP.., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	RAYMOND B. YATES, M.D., P.C. PROFIT SHARINGPLAN V. HENDON [Syllabus] Whether the working owner of a business (here, the sole shareholder of a corporate employer) is precluded from being a "participant" under Section 3(7) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1002(7), in an ERISA plan?
	BP AMERICA PRODUCTION CO. V. BURTON [Syllabus]
	TILL V. SCS CREDIT CORP. [Syllabus]
	HINCK V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	LINCOLN V. VIGIL, 508 U.S. 182 (1993). [Syllabus]
	IDAHO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] The National Government holds title, in trust for the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, to lands underlying portions of Lake Coeur d'Alene and the St. Joe River.
	UNITED STATES V. O'HAGAN, 117 S.CT. 2199, 138 L.ED.2D 724 (1997). [Syllabus]
	TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC. V.TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY [Syllabus] Two moratoria on development that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency imposed while formulating a comprehensive land-use plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin did not constitute per se takings of property requiring compensation under the Takings Clause.
	PHILLIPS V. WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION, 524 U.S. 156 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INS. CO. V. UNIONPLANTERS BANK, N. A. [Syllabus] Does a postpetition administrative creditor in a bankruptcy case have standing under 11 U.S.C. 506© to seek payment of its administrative claim from property of the bankruptcy estate that is encumbered by a secured creditor's lien?"
	MAISLIN INDUSTRIES, U.S. V. PRIMARY STEEL, 497 U.S. 116 (1990) [Syllabus]
	MARRAMA V. CITIZENS BANK OF MASS. [Syllabus]
	KIOWA TRIBE OF OK V. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) [Syllabus]
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. SAC & FOX NATION, 508 U.S. 114 (1993). [Syllabus]
	PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL V. BABBITT [Syllabus] 1. Destroy the protection and priority statutorily accorded to adjudicated rights to graze livestock on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, by replacing established ""grazing preferences"" with variable ""permitted uses"", 2. Provide that the United States in the future will have title to structural range improvements made and paid for by grazing permittees: and 3. Allow grazing permits to be issued to persons not ""engaged the livestock business."""
	PHILIP MORRIS USA V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. HOME STATE BANK, 501 U.S. 78 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SOUTH DAKOTA V. BOURLAND, 508 U.S. 679 (1993). [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER V. KEYSTONE CONSOL. INDUS., 508 U.S. 152 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MERTENS V. HEWITT ASSOCS., 508 U.S. 248 (1993). [Syllabus]
	RICE V. CAYETANO [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution permit the adoption of an explicitracial classification that restricts the right to vote in statewide elections for state officials.
	STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	TAYLOR V. FREELAND & KRONZ, 503 U.S. 638 (1992). [Syllabus]
	GASPERINI V. CENTER FOR HUMANITIES, INC., 517 U.S. 1102 (1996). [Syllabus]
	CONROY V. ANISKOFF, 507 U.S. 511 (1993) [Syllabus]
	HAGEN V. UTAH, 510 U.S. 399 (1994). [Syllabus]
	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:
	BELL ATLANTIC CORP. V. TWOMBLY [Syllabus]
	SWIDLER & BERLIN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 399 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HIBBS V. WINN [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES SHOE CORP., 523 U.S. 360 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES NAT'L BANK OF ORE. V. INDEPENDENT INS. AGENTS, 508 U.S. 439 (1993) [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 488 U.S. 1041 (1992). [Syllabus]
	LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). [Syllabus]
	CUTTER V. WILKINSON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	C & L ENTERPRISES, INC. V. CITIZEN BANDPOTAWATOMI TRIBE OF OKLA.SYLLABUS [Syllabus] Under the agreement respondent Tribe proposed and signed, the Tribe clearly consented to arbitration and to the enforcement of arbitral awards in Oklahoma state court; the Tribe thereby waived its sovereign immunity from petitioner contractor's state-court suit to enforce its arbitration award.
	FARRAR V. HOBBY, 506 U.S. 103 (1992). [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.
	ELDRED V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus] The Copyright Term Extension Act, which enlarges the duration of existing and future copyrights by 20 years, does not exceed Congress' power under the Constitution's Copyright Clause and does not violate the First Amendment.
	HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. V. ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO. [Syllabus]
	BALLARD V. COMMISSIONER [Syllabus]
	EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. SAUDI BASIC INDUSTRIES CORP. [Syllabus]
	ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL CORP. V. RASH ET UX., 117 S.CT. 1879, 138 L.ED.2D (1997) [Syllabus]
	ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CELOTEX CORP. V. EDWARDS, 514 U.S. 300 (1995). [Syllabus]
	GILBERT, PRESIDENT, EAST STROUDSBURG UNIVERSITY V. HOMAR, 520 U.S. 924 (1997) [Syllabus]
	O'MELVENY & MYERS V. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79 (1994). [Syllabus]
	CISNEROS V. ALPINE RIDGE GROUP, 508 U.S. 10 (1993). [Syllabus]
	BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR V. YOUPEE, 519 U.S. 234 (1997). [Syllabus]
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. CHICKASAW NATION, 515 U.S. 450 (1995). [Syllabus]
	MEYER V. HOLLEY [Syllabus] The Fair Housing Act imposes liability without fault upon a corporate employer in accordance with traditional agency principles, i.e., it normally imposes vicarious liability upon the corporation but not upon its officers or owners.
	TEST TWO V. TEST TWO [Syllabus]
	LOCKHEED CORP. ET AL. V. SPINK, 517 U.S. 882 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ZICHERMAN V. KOREAN AIRLINES CO. LTD., 516 U.S. 217 (1996) [Syllabus]
	LOCKHART V. FRETWELL, 506 U.S. 364 (1993). [Syllabus]
	INTERNATIONAL SOC. FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS V. LEE, 505 U.S. 672 (1992). [Syllabus]
	NOBELMAN V. AMERICAN SAV. BANK, 508 U.S. 324 (1993). [Syllabus]
	FIDELITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. V. FINK, 522 U.S. 221 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BATES V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 23 (1997) [Syllabus]
	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.
	ATHERTON V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 519 U.S. 213 (1997). [Syllabus]
	DUSENBERY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] The Government's sending of notice by certified mail of a cash forfeiture to petitioner's place of incarceration satisfied his due process rights.
	ALASKA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTALCONSERVATION V. EPA [Syllabus] Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in upholding the EPA's assertion of authority to second-guess a permitting decision made by the State of Alaska--which had been delegated permitting authority under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.--in conflict with decisions of this Court and other federal courts of appeals establishing the division of federal-state jurisdiction under the Act and similar statutory programs.
	GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS, INC. V. DARUEENGINEERING & MFG. [Syllabus]
	CHANDLER V. MILLER, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) [Syllabus]
	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.
	UNITED STATES V. SUN-DIAMOND GROWERS OF CAL. [Syllabus]
	CHAMBERS V. NASCO, INC., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) [Syllabus]
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether , in light of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and the interpretive rule that constitutionally doubtful constructions should be avoided, see DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988), Section 844(I) applies to the arson of a private residence: and if so, whether its application to the private residence in the present case is constitutional."
	EVANS V. UNITED STATES, 504 U.S. 255 (1992). [Syllabus]
	LEXECON INC. V. MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH 523 U.S. 26 (1998) [Syllabus]
	KOKKONEN V. GUARDIAN LIFE INS., 511 U.S. 375 (1994). [Syllabus]
	INGALLS SHIPBUILDING, INC. V. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, 519 U.S. 248 (1997) [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN NAT. RED CROSS V. S. G., 505 U.S. 247 (1992). [Syllabus]
	LITTON FINANCIAL PRINTING DIVISION V. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) [Syllabus]
	OWEN V. OWEN, 500 U.S. 305 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 507 U.S. 746 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MONTANA V. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, 523 U.S. 696 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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.