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 immunity returned 138 results.

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

1000 ALDEN V. MAINE
[Syllabus]
886 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?
805 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.
805 RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997).
[Syllabus]
805
[Syllabus]
778 SAMANTAR V. YOUSUF
[Syllabus]
778 SAUCIER V. KATZ
[Syllabus]
A qualified immunity ruling requires an analysis not susceptible of fusion with the question whether unreasonable force was used in making an arrest; petitioner, a military police officer, was entitled to qualified immunity for his actions in arresting respondent.
746
[Syllabus]
727 CLINTON V. JONES, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)
[Syllabus]
708 BEHRENS V. PELLETIER, 516 U.S. 299 (1996).
[Syllabus]
690
[Syllabus]
690
[Syllabus]
690 SOSSAMON V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
690 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.
668 CAMRETA V. GREENE
[Syllabus]
668
[Syllabus]
644 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.
644 REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES V. PIMENTEL
[Syllabus]
644 CENTRAL VA. COMMUNITY COLLEGE V. KATZ
[Syllabus]
644 WILL V. HALLOCK
[Syllabus]
644
[Syllabus]
644 KIOWA TRIBE OF OK V. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 523 U.S. 751 (1998)
[Syllabus]
619
[Syllabus]
619
[Syllabus]
619
[Syllabus]
619 ORTIZ V. JORDAN
[Syllabus]
590 VAN V. GOLDSTEIN
[Syllabus]
590 PEARSON V. CALLAHAN
[Syllabus]
590 COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK V. FLORIDA PREPAIDPOSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSE BD.
[Syllabus]
590 DEPARTMENT OF ARMY V. BLUE FOX, INC.
[Syllabus]
590 BOGAN V. SCOTT-HARRIS, 523 U.S. 44 (1998)
[Syllabus]
557 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
557
[Syllabus]
557 RAYGOR V. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF MINN.
[Syllabus]
Title 28 U. S. C. §1367(d), which purports to toll the statute of limitations for supplemental state-law claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed, does not apply to claims against nonconsenting state defendants that are dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds.
557 KALINA V. FLETCHER, 522 U.S. 118 (1997)
[Syllabus]
557 JOHNSON V. FANKELL, 520 U.S. 911 (1997).
[Syllabus]
557 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?"
557 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
557
[Syllabus]
522 WILSON V. LAYNE
[Syllabus]
522 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.
522
[Syllabus]
522 VIRGINIA OFFICE FOR PROTECTION AND ADVOCACYV. STEWART
[Syllabus]
522
[Syllabus]
522 ALI V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
[Syllabus]
522
[Syllabus]
522 UNITED STATES V. HUBBELL
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination protects information previously recorded in voluntarily created documents that a defendant delivers to the government pursuant to an immunized act of production. 2. Whether a defendant's act producing ordinary business records constitutes a compelled testimonial communication solely because the government cannot identify the documents with reasonable particularity before they are produced."
482 CRAWFORD-EL V. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998)
[Syllabus]
482 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."
482
[Syllabus]
482 HUI V. CASTANEDA
[Syllabus]
482 UNITED STATES V. BALSYS, 524 U.S. 666 (1998)
[Syllabus]
482 JEFFERSON COUNTY V. ACKER
[Syllabus]
482 FRANCHISE TAX BD. OF CAL. V. HYATT
[Syllabus]
A long-time resident of California sued that State in a Nevada state court, alleging that California committed the torts of invasion of privacy, abuse of process, and fraud in the course of a personal income tax investigation concerning the timing of the individual's change of residence the timing of the individual's change of residence from California to Nevada. California Government Code section 860.2 reads: Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by….(a) Instituting any judicial or administrative proceeding of a tax. In Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979) this Court ruled that , in a tort action against Nevada arising out of a traffic accident occurring in California, California need not give full faith and credit to Nevada's statutory limitation on liability for injuries caused by Nevada state employees. However, the Court also noted that its ruling was fact-based: California's exercise of jurisdiction in this case poses no substantial threat to our constitutional system of cooperative federalism. Suits involving traffic accidents occurring outside of Nevada could hardly interfere with Nevada's capacity to fulfill its own sovereign responsibilities. 440 U.S. at 424 n.24 The question presented is: Did the Nevada Supreme Court impermissibly interfere with California's capacity to fulfill its sovereign responsibilities, in derogation of article IV, section 1, by refusing to give full faith and credit to California Government Code section 860.2, in a suit brought against California for the torts of invasion of privacy, outrage, abuse of process, and fraud allege to have occurred in the course of California's administrative efforts to determine a former resident's liability for California personal income tax?
482
[Syllabus]
482 ASHCROFT V. AL-KIDD
[Syllabus]
482 FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK
[Syllabus]
482 ASHCROFT V. IQBAL
[Syllabus]
482 UNITED STATES V. GEORGIA
[Syllabus]
431 HOPE V. PELZER
[Syllabus]
Respondent Alabama prison guards were not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment phase where reasonable officers would have known that using a hitching post to punish a prisoner under the circumstances alleged by petitioner inmate violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
431 GOMEZ-PEREZ V. POTTER
[Syllabus]
431 OSBORN V. HALEY
[Syllabus]
431 SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. #1 V. REDDING
[Syllabus]
431 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?
431 SWINT V. CHAMBERS COUNTY COMM'N, 514 U.S. 35 (1995).
[Syllabus]
431 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.
431 TENNESSEE STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORPORATION V. HOOD
[Syllabus]
431 UNITED STATES V. OLSON
[Syllabus]
431 JOHNSON V. JONES, 515 U.S. 304 (1995).
[Syllabus]
431 ALABAMA V. NORTH CAROLINA
[Syllabus]
431
[Syllabus]
431 REPUBLIC OF IRAQ V. BEATY
[Syllabus]
431 ORFF V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
431 DIRECTOR OF REVENUE OF MO. V. COBANK ACB
[Syllabus]
Does 12 U.S.C. Section 2134 authorize states to tax the income of the National Bank for Cooperatives, a federally chartered instrumentality of the United States?""."
431 LANE V. PENA, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., 518 U.S. 187 (1996).
[Syllabus]
431 GUTIERREZ DE MARTINEZ V. LAMAGNO, 515 U.S. 417 (1995).
[Syllabus]
371 MCKUNE V. LILE
[Syllabus]
The Tenth Circuit's judgment-that Kansas prison officials' threat to reduce respondent inmate's privilege status and transfer him to maximum security if he refused to participate in a sexual abuse treatment program constituted compelled self-incrimination violative of the Fifth Amendment-is reversed, and the case is remanded.
371 PERMANENT MISSION OF INDIA TO UNITED NATIONS V.CITY OF NEW YORK
[Syllabus]
371 ARIZONA DEPT. OF REVENUE V. BLAZE CONSTR. CO.
[Syllabus]
371 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.
371
[Syllabus]
371 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.
371 IDAHO V. COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE OF IDAHO, 117 S.CT. 2028, 138 L.ED.2D 438 (1997).
[Syllabus]
371
[Syllabus]
371 MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND SUPPORT FOR ARMEDFORCES OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN V.ELAHI
[Syllabus]
371
[Syllabus]
371 UNITED STATES V. LANIER, 520 U.S. 259 (1997).
[Syllabus]
371 GROH V. RAMIREZ
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly ruled that a law enforcement officer violated clearly established law, and thus was personally liable in damages and not entitled to qualified immunity, when at the time he acted there was no decision by the Supreme Court or any other court so holding, and the only lower court decisions addressing the issue had found the same conduct did not violate the law?
371 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.
371 WAGNON V. PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION
[Syllabus]
371
[Syllabus]
371
[Syllabus]
293 VERIZON MD. INC. V. PUBLIC SERV. COMM’N OF MD.
[Syllabus]
Title 28 U. S. C. §1331 provides a basis for federal-court jurisdiction over a telecommunication carrier's claim that a state public utility commission's order requiring reciprocal compensation for telephone calls to Internet service providers is pre-empted by federal law; the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, permits the suit to go forward against the state commissioners in their official capacities.
293 MORSE V. FREDERICK
[Syllabus]
293 POWEREX CORP. V. RELIANT ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
[Syllabus]
293 CALIFORNIA V. DEEP SEA RESEARCH, INC., 523 U.S. 491 (1998)
[Syllabus]
293 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.
293 UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, 514 U.S. 527 (1995).
[Syllabus]
293 SCOTT V. HARRIS
[Syllabus]
293 HENDERSON V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 654 (1996).
[Syllabus]
293 ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997).
[Syllabus]
293 DOLE FOOD CO. V. PATRICKSON
[Syllabus]
Whether a corporation in which a foreign sovereign controls a majority of the shares indirectly through ownership of the corporation’s ultimate parent may qualify as a foriegn state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunitities Act
293
[Syllabus]
293 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.
293 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?
293 CHENEY V. UNITED STATES DIST. COURT FOR D. C.
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 1, §§ 1 et seq., can be construed, consistent with the Constitution, principles of separation of powers, and this Court's decisions governing judicial review of Executive Branch actions, to authorize broad discovery of the process by which the Vice President and other senior advisors gathered information to advise the President on important national policy matters, based solely on an unsupported allegation in a complaint that the advisory group was not constituted as the President expressly directed and the advisory group itself reported? (2) Whether the court of appeals had mandamus or appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's unprecedented discovery orders in this litigation?
293 WATSON V. PHILIP MORRIS COS.
[Syllabus]
293
[Syllabus]
293 CONN V. GABBERT
[Syllabus]
293
[Syllabus]
293 WISCONSIN DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. SCHACHT, 524 U.S. 381 (1998)
[Syllabus]
293 JINKS V. RICHLAND COUNTY
[Syllabus]
The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute includes a provision, 28 U.S.C. 1367(d), that tolls the period of limitations for supplemental claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed. The question presented is whether the tolling provision invades state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
293
[Syllabus]
185 ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
185 UNITED STATES V. NAVAJO NATION
[Syllabus]
185 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA V. DOE, 519 U.S. 425 (1997).
[Syllabus]
185 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.
185 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.
185
[Syllabus]
185 MEDTRONIC, INC. V. LOHR ET VIR, 518 U.S. 470 (1996).
[Syllabus]
185 RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995).
[Syllabus]
185 NEVADA V. HICKS
[Syllabus]
A tribal court does not have jurisdiction over tortious conduct and 42 U. S. C. §1983 claims against state officials who entered tribal land to investigate off-reservation violations of state law.
185 WEST V. GIBSON
[Syllabus]
185 CITY OF SHERRILL V. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF N. Y.
[Syllabus]
185 SARATOGA FISHING CO. V. J. M. MARTINAC & CO., 520 U.S. 875 (1997)
[Syllabus]
185 OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998)
[Syllabus]
185
[Syllabus]
185 LEBRON V. NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP., 513 U.S. 374 (1995).
[Syllabus]
185 JOHNSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
185 WILKIE V. ROBBINS
[Syllabus]
185
[Syllabus]
185 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.
185 OFFICE OF SEN. MARK DAYTON V. HANSON
[Syllabus]
185 DEVENPECK V. ALFORD
[Syllabus]
185 MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
185
[Syllabus]
185 MV. CHICAGO
[Syllabus]
185 REYNOLDSVILLE CASKET CO. V. HYDE, 514 U.S. 749 (1995).
[Syllabus]