Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query evidence and rules returned 122 results.

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

	[Syllabus]
	HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD [Syllabus]
	CLARK V. ARIZONA [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GRAY V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S. CT. 110, 137 L. ED. 2D 234 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	TOME V. UNITED STATES, 513 U.S. 150 (1995). [Syllabus]
	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?
	CARMELL V. TEXAS [Syllabus] Whether the Texas Court of Appeals erred in concluding that application of the 1993 version of Texas's article 38.07, Code of Criminal Procedure, was not ex post facto when: (I) the offense occurred in 1992, a full year before adoption of the new rules of law; (ii) there was no outcry for approximately three years, and the law in effect at the time required outcry within 6 months; and , (iii) the petitioner would have otherwise been entitled to an acquittal, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
	UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) [Syllabus]
	DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE FOR THIRD JUDICIALDIST. V. OSBORNE [Syllabus]
	VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. FCC [Syllabus] The Federal Communications Commission can require state utility commissions to set the rates charged for leased telecommunications network elements on a forward-looking basis untied to the network owners' investment, and can require those owners to combine such elements upon the request of a leasing competitor that cannot do the combining itself.
	[Syllabus]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	SCHLUP V. DELO, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). [Syllabus]
	HARRINGTON V. RICHTER [Syllabus]
	METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC. V.GROKSTER, LTD. [Syllabus]
	INTEL CORP. V. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	HENDERSON V. SHINSEKI [Syllabus]
	SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO. V. MENDELSOHN [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MEZZANATTO, 513 U.S. 196 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. PATANE [Syllabus] Does the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine apply to physical-evidence fruit of a Miranda violation?
	OHLER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether a defendant waives her right to appeal a ruling granting the government's in limine motion to introduce evidence of her prior conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1) if she attempts to "" remove the sting"" of the conviction by introducing the conviction while testifying on direct examination?"
	CRAWFORD-EL V. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CALDERON V. THOMPSON, 523 U.S. 538 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. JOINER, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) [Syllabus]
	KENTUCKY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS V. EEOC [Syllabus]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Syllabus] Whether a program under Chapter 2 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 7301, et seq., which provides federal funds to state and local education agencies to purchase and lend neutral, secular, and nonreligious materials such as computers, software, and library books to public and nonpublic schools for use by the students attending those schools, and which allocates the funds on an equal per-student basis, regardless of the religious or secular character of the schools the students choose to attend, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
	MEDELLIN V. TEXAS [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE CTY. V. EARLS [Syllabus] Petitioner school district's drug testing policy for students participating in extracurricular activities is a reasonable means of furthering the district's important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren and does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
	ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP. [Syllabus]
	558 U. S. ____ (2009) [Syllabus]
	CORLEY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BEARD V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	CUNNINGHAM V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	LEE V. KEMNA [Syllabus] Two Missouri procedural Rules, as injected into this case by the state appellate court, did not constitute state grounds adequate to bar federal habeas review of the merits of petitioner's federal constitutional claim.
	ATWATER V. LAGO VISTA [Syllabus] The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine.
	KOLSTAD V. AMERICAN DENTAL ASSN. [Syllabus]
	CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, DMH 497 U.S. 261 (1990) [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. MASSACHUSETTS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BALLARD V. COMMISSIONER [Syllabus]
	BOULWARE V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BULLCOMING V. NEW MEXICO [Syllabus]
	BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) [Syllabus]
	JONES V. BOCK [Syllabus]
	SHINSEKI V. SANDERS [Syllabus]
	CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 416 (1996). [Syllabus]
	WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. DUKES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. CARPENTER [Syllabus] Whether a federal habeas court is barred from considering an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim as "" cause"" for the procedural default of another habeas claim when the ineffective-assistance claim is itself procedurally defaulted."
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	UNITED STATES V. BOOKER [Syllabus]
	BEARD V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA V. MOORE [Syllabus]
	NEVADA COMMN ON ETHICS V. CARRIGAN [Syllabus]
	MID-CON FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. V. MICHIGAN PUB.SERV. COMM’N [Syllabus]
	KENNEDY V. LOUISIANA [Syllabus]
	BOYLE V. UNITED STATES [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.
	MONGE V. CALIFORNIA, 524 U.S. 721 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HERRING V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ROPER V. SIMMONS [Syllabus]
	CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC V. BILLING [Syllabus]
	DICKERSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether the passage of 18 U.S.C. 3501 Was an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to legislatively overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)?"
	WATSON V. PHILIP MORRIS COS. [Syllabus]
	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.
	REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA V. ALTMANN [Syllabus] Does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) confer jurisdiction in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over the Republic of Austria and the state-owned Austrian Gallery in a suit alleging wrongful appropriation of six Gustav Klimt paintings from their rightful heirs?
	FEDERAL MARITIME COMM’N V. SOUTH CAROLINAPORTS AUTHORITY [Syllabus] State sovereign immunity bars the Federal Maritime Commission from adjudicating a private party's complaint against a nonconsenting State.
	GROSS V. FBL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	NKEN V. HOLDER [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. V.BRENTWOOD ACADEMY [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KUCANA V. HOLDER [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	MAGWOOD V. PATTERSON [Syllabus]
	SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. #1 V. REDDING [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. VENTRIS [Syllabus]
	MV. CHICAGO [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	PERDUE V. KENNY A. [Syllabus]
	DADA V. MUKASEY [Syllabus]
	LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. V.PSKS, INC. [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. BAYER CORP. [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN INS. ASSN. V. GARAMENDI [Syllabus] California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (HVIRA) requires California insurers to provide extensive information regarding every insurance policy issued in Nazi dominated Europe between 1920 and 1945 by any insurer with which the California insurer now has a legal relationship. The district court enjoined enforcement of the Act on three constitutional grounds: interference with the federal government's power over foreign affairs, due process, and the Foreign Commerce Clause. Over the objections of the U.S. government and affected foreign governments, and in direct conflict with Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Gallagher, 267 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit reversed and upheld the HVIRA in all respects. 1. Whether the HVIRA, which the U.S. government has called an actual interference with U.S. foreign policy, and which affected foreign governments have protested as inconsistent with international agreements, violates the foreign affairs doctrine of Zschering v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968). 2. Whether the HVIRA, which attempts to regulate insurance transactions that occurred overseas between foreign parties more than half a century ago, exceeds California's legislative jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. 3. Whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1011-1015, insulates the HVIRA form review under the Foreign Commerce Clause.
	MONTANA V. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, 523 U.S. 696 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	JAFFEE V. REDMOND, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) [Syllabus]
	TUAN ANH NGUYEN V. INS [Syllabus] Title 8 U. S. C. §1409, which provides different citizenship rules for children born abroad and out of wedlock to one United States citizen and one noncitizen depending on whether the citizen parent is the mother or the father, is consistent with the equal protection guarantee embedded in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
	DAVIS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	RAMDASS V. ANGELONE [Syllabus] Simmons v. South Carolina holds that when a prosecutor seeks the death sentence on the ground of the defendant's future dangerousness, the defendant has a constitutional right to inform the jurors truthfully that if they spare his life, state law forbids him ever to be released from prison. Does the rule in Simmons turn on the actual operation of state law, or on its hypertechnical terms; and must a federal habeas court adjudicating a Simmons claim make its own analysis of the functional consequences of state law, or is it bound by the state courts' characterization of state law for federal constitutional purposes?"
	BRACY V. GRAMLEY, WARDEN, 520 U.S. 899 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ALABAMA V. SHELTON [Syllabus] Under Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25, 40, a suspended sentence that may "end up in the actual deprivation of a person's liberty" may not be imposed unless the defendant was accorded "the guiding hand of counsel" in the prosecution for the crime charged.
	METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. GLENN [Syllabus]
	KUMHO TIRE CO. V. CARMICHAEL [Syllabus]
	RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WINSTAR CORP. ET AL., 518 U.S. 839 (1996). [Syllabus]
	CUOMO V. CLEARING HOUSE ASSN., L. L. C. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[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:
	KSR INTL CO. V. TELEFLEX INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	VIETH V. JUBELIRER [Syllabus]
	PLIVA, INC. V. MENSING [Syllabus]
	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.
	HOHN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 236 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN [Syllabus]
	SAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	SHAFER V. SOUTH CAROLINA [Syllabus] The South Carolina Supreme Court incorrectly interpreted Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154, when it declared that case inapplicable to South Carolina's current sentencing scheme.
	IOWA V. TOVAR [Syllabus]
	DEMORE V. KIM [Syllabus] Whether respodent's mandatory detention under Section 1226 ( c) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, where respondent was convicted of an aggravated felony after his admission into the United States.
	[Syllabus]