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 jurisdiction returned 353 results.

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

1000 RUHRGAS AG V. MARATHON OIL CO.
[Syllabus]
991 CITY OF CHICAGO V. INTERN'L COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 522 U.S. 156 (1997)
[Syllabus]
966
[Syllabus]
966 NEW JERSEY V. NEW YORK, 523 U.S. 767 (1998)
[Syllabus]
957 EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. ALLAPATTAH SERVICES, INC.
[Syllabus]
915 NEW JERSEY V. DELAWARE
[Syllabus]
892 SINOCHEM INTL CO. V. MALAYSIA INTL SHIPPINGCORP.
[Syllabus]
856
[Syllabus]
856 RASUL V. BUSH
[Syllabus]
Whether United States courts lack jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba?
856 TENNESSEE STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORPORATION V. HOOD
[Syllabus]
842 GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES OPERATIONS, S.A.V.BROWN
[Syllabus]
842 EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. SAUDI BASIC INDUSTRIES CORP.
[Syllabus]
828 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC. V. HENSON
[Syllabus]
The All Writs Act does not furnish removal jurisdiction; that Act, alone or in combination with the existence of ancillary enforcement jurisdiction, is not a substitute for 28 U. S. C. §1441's requirement that a federal court have original jurisdiction over an action in order for it to be removed from a state court.
814 WISCONSIN DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. SCHACHT, 524 U.S. 381 (1998)
[Syllabus]
780 PLAINS COMMERCE BANK V. LONG FAMILY LAND &CATTLE CO.
[Syllabus]
780 VADEN V. DISCOVER BANK
[Syllabus]
780 BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH
[Syllabus]
760 UNITED STATES V. DENEDO
[Syllabus]
760 MUNAF V.GEREN
[Syllabus]
760 CARLSBAD TECHNOLOGY, INC. V. HIF BIO, INC.
[Syllabus]
760
[Syllabus]
760 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.
760 STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997).
[Syllabus]
740 NEW YORK V. FERC
[Syllabus]
FERC did not exceed its jurisdiction when it required electric utilities that "unbundle"-i.e., separate-transmission costs from electricity costs when billing their retail consumers to transmit competitors' electricity over their lines on the same terms that the utilities apply to their own transmissions; and FERC's decision not to impose that requirement on utilities that offer only "bundled" retail sales was a permissible policy choice.
740 EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH
[Syllabus]
721 J. MV. NICASTRO
[Syllabus]
721 REED ELSEVIER, INC. V. MUCHNICK
[Syllabus]
721 GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS, INC. V. DARUEENGINEERING & MFG.
[Syllabus]
721 CALIFORNIA V. DEEP SEA RESEARCH, INC., 523 U.S. 491 (1998)
[Syllabus]
721 PEACOCK V. THOMAS, 516 U.S. 349 (1996).
[Syllabus]
698
[Syllabus]
698 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.
698
[Syllabus]
698 HAYWOOD V. DROWN
[Syllabus]
698 WACHOVIA BANK, N.A. V. SCHMIDT
[Syllabus]
673 HERTZ CORP. V. FRIEND
[Syllabus]
673 HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD
[Syllabus]
673
[Syllabus]
673 STERN V. MARSHALL
[Syllabus]
673 STEEL CO. V. CITIZENS FOR BETTER ENVIRONMENT, 523 U.S. 83 (1998)
[Syllabus]
673 KONTRICK V. RYAN
[Syllabus]
673 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK V. TRAFFIC STREAM (BVI)INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
[Syllabus]
A corporation organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands is a "citize[n] or subjec[t] of a foreign state" for purposes of alienage diversity jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. §1332(a)(2).
673 JEROME B. GRUBART, INC. V. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO., 513 U.S. 527 (1995).
[Syllabus]
647 CHAO V. MALLARD BAY DRILLING, INC.
[Syllabus]
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's jurisdiction to issue citations to respondent barge owner was not pre-empted by the Coast Guard under §4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; and the barge in question was a "workplace" covered by the Act.
647 OSBORN V. HALEY
[Syllabus]
647 558 U.S. ____ (2009)
[Syllabus]
647 LOPEZ V. MONTEREY COUNTY
[Syllabus]
647 RENO V. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, 520 U.S. 471 (1997).
[Syllabus]
647 SWINT V. CHAMBERS COUNTY COMM'N, 514 U.S. 35 (1995).
[Syllabus]
647 POWEREX CORP. V. RELIANT ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
[Syllabus]
616 TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. V. BAILEY
[Syllabus]
616 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.
616
[Syllabus]
616 CARCIERI V. SALAZAR
[Syllabus]
616 RUMSFELD V. PADILLA
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether the President has authority as Commander in Chief and in light of Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, to seize and detain a United States citizen in the United States based on a determination by the President that he is an enemy combatant who is closely associated with al Qaeda and has engaged in hostile and war-like acts, or whether 18 U.S.C. 4001(a) precludes that exercise of Presidential authority? (2) Whether the district court has jurisdiction over the proper respondent to the amended habeas petition?
616 LINCOLN PROPERTY CO. V. ROCHE
[Syllabus]
616 CLINTON V. GOLDSMITH
[Syllabus]
583 CATERPILLAR INC. V. LEWIS, 519 U.S. 61 (1996)
[Syllabus]
583 KIRCHER V. PUTNAM FUNDS TRUST
[Syllabus]
583 MARQUEZ V. SCREEN ACTORS
[Syllabus]
583 HOLMES GROUP, INC. V. VORNADO AIRCIRCULATION SYSTEMS, INC.
[Syllabus]
The Federal Circuit cannot assert jurisdiction over a case in which the complaint does not allege a claim arising under federal patent law, but the answer contains a patent-law counterclaim.
583
[Syllabus]
583 MORRISON V. NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD.
[Syllabus]
583 RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
583 SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK CTY. V.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
[Syllabus]
Whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, consistent with the Clean Waters Act and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, may assert jurisdiction over isolated intrastate waters solely because those waters solely because those waters do or potentially could serve as habitat of migratory birds."
546
[Syllabus]
546 HINCK V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
546 FELKER V. TURPIN, WARDEN, 518 U.S. 1051 (1996).
[Syllabus]
546 THINGS REMEMBERED, INC. V. PETRARCA, 516 U.S. 124 (1995).
[Syllabus]
546 VERIZON MD. INC. V. PUBLIC SERV. COMMN 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.
546 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.
546
[Syllabus]
546 MATSUSHITA ELEC. INDUS. CO., LTD., ET AL. V. EPSTEIN ET AL., 516 U.S. 367 (1996)
[Syllabus]
546 PRESTON V. FERRER
[Syllabus]
546 TEXTRON LYCOMING RECIPROCATING ENGINE DIV., AVCO CORP. V. AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, 523 U.S. 653 (1998)
[Syllabus]
546 HENDERSON V. SHINSEKI
[Syllabus]
546
[Syllabus]
546
[Syllabus]
546 BAKER BY THOMAS V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 522 U.S. 222 (1998)
[Syllabus]
546 GRUPO DATAFLUX V. ATLAS GLOBAL GROUP, L.P.
[Syllabus]
(1) Did the court of appeals err by creating a new exception to the longstanding rule that diversity jurisdiction must be determined based on a party's citizenship and circumstances as they existed at the time suit was filed? (2) Did the court of appeals err by allowing a unilateral change in a party's citizenship during the course of litigation to create diversity jurisdiction that did not exist at the time suit was filed?
504
[Syllabus]
504
[Syllabus]
504 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?
504 FREE ENTERPRISE FUND V. PUBLIC COMPANYACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BD.
[Syllabus]
504 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.
504 UNITED STATES V. TOHONO OODHAM NATION
[Syllabus]
504 KUCANA V. HOLDER
[Syllabus]
504 UNITED STATES V. RUIZ
[Syllabus]
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.
504 BOWLES V. RUSSELL
[Syllabus]
504 LEWIS V. LEWIS & CLARK MARINE, INC.
[Syllabus]
1. Does the district court abuse its discretion by dissolving the injuction against state court proceeding in a single claimant limitation of liability case (46 U.S.C. 181, et seq.) when the claimant guarantees the vessel owner's right to limitation by stipulating that the claim does not exceed the limitation fund; and 2. If so, must the injunction nonetheless be dissolved pursuant to the Saving To Suitors clause of 28 U.S.C. 1333(2)?"
504 JEFFERSON V. CITY OF TARRANT, ALA., 522 U.S. 75 (1997)
[Syllabus]
504 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.
504 UNITED STATES V. COTTON
[Syllabus]
A defective indictment does not deprive a court of jurisdiction; the omission from a federal indictment of a fact that enhances the statutory maximum sentence does not justify a court of appeals' vacating the enhanced sentence, even though the defendant did not object in the trial court.
504 REPUBLIC OF IRAQ V. BEATY
[Syllabus]
504 RIVET V. REGIONS BANK OF LA., 522 U.S. 470 (1998)
[Syllabus]
504 CENTRAL VA. COMMUNITY COLLEGE V. KATZ
[Syllabus]
504 RENO V. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD.
[Syllabus]
Whether the district court erred in concluding that, because Bossier Parish School Board’s 1992 redistricting plan was not enacted with a retrogressive purpose, it was not enacted with ""the purpose *** of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race,"" within the meaning of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S C. 1973c.
504 CITY OF SHERRILL V. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF N.Y.
[Syllabus]
504 UNITED STATES V. BALSYS, 524 U.S. 666 (1998)
[Syllabus]
504 SISSON V. RUBY, 497 U.S. 358 (1990)
[Syllabus]
504 ROELL V. WITHROW
[Syllabus]
When a district court, upon the plaintiff's written consent, refers a case to a magistrate judge for trial, see 28 U.S.C. 636©, and all parties, the magistrate judge, and the jury proceed in a manner consistent with that referral, must a court of appeals sua sponte vacate the judgment for lack of jurisdiction because defendants did not expressly consent, or can defendants cure that alleged defect by confirming, in a post-judgment filing with the district court, their consent to trial before the magistrate judge?
450 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.
450 YOUR HOME VISITING NURSE SERVICES, INC. V. SHALALA
[Syllabus]
450 MEDIMMUNE, INC. V. GENENTECH, INC.
[Syllabus]
450
[Syllabus]
450
[Syllabus]
450 SOUTH DAKOTA V. YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE, 522 U.S. 329 (1998)
[Syllabus]
450
[Syllabus]
450 UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES SHOE CORP., 523 U.S. 360 (1998)
[Syllabus]
450
[Syllabus]
450 HOHN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 236 (1998)
[Syllabus]
450 RENO V. AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATIONCOMM.
[Syllabus]
450 CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASSN. V. FTC
[Syllabus]
450 BRANCH V. SMITH
[Syllabus]
The Federal District Court properly enjoined a Mississippi state court's proposed congressional redistricting plan and fashioned its own plan under 2 U. S. C. §2c.
450
[Syllabus]
450 BREUER V. JIMS CONCRETE OF BREVARD, INC.
[Syllabus]
Whether an action commenced in state court under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq., (theFLSA), can be removed by the defendant to a federal district court, even though the FLSA expressly provides that the case can be maintained in state court? Whether the Eleventh Circuit's Interpretation of the word maintained as used in the jurisdictional provisions of the FLSA conflicts with this Court's pronounced definition of the word maintain' to be used when construing federal statutes? When the conflict, disparity and deadlock of opinion between the Eleventh and First Circuits and the Eighth Circuit, and between dozens of district courts around the country, regarding whether FLSA actions commenced in state court are removable to federal court, warrants that this Court, as suggested by the Eleventh Circuit in its opinion below, grant this petition to resolve the question once and for all in order to bring uniformity to the federal courts, and eliminate widespread disparity between litigants in our federal system.
450
[Syllabus]
450 CALCANO-MARTINEZ V. INS
[Syllabus]
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 precludes courts of appeals from exercising jurisdiction to review a final removal order against aliens removable by reason of aggravated felony convictions, but such aliens may pursue habeas relief in the district court.
450 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. LUNDY, 516 U.S. 235 (1996).
[Syllabus]
450 OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. CHICKASAW NATION, 515 U.S. 450 (1995).
[Syllabus]
450 QUACKENBUSH, CAL. INS. COMM'R, ET AL. V. ALLSTATE INS. CO., 517 U.S. 706 (1996)
[Syllabus]
450 FLORIDA V. THOMAS
[Syllabus]
Because the judgment below was not "[f]inal" within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §1257(a), this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the question on which certiorari was granted.
450 ROCKWELL INTL CORP. V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
450
[Syllabus]
450 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.
450 ASHCROFT V. IQBAL
[Syllabus]
450 BANK ONE CHICAGO, N. A. V. MIDWEST BANK & TRUST CO., 516 U.S. 264 (1996).
[Syllabus]
450 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.
388 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TOLIFE, INC.
[Syllabus]
388 CUNNINGHAM V. HAMILTON COUNTY
[Syllabus]
388 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.
388 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
388
[Syllabus]
388
[Syllabus]
388 OFFICE OF SEN. MARK DAYTON V. HANSON
[Syllabus]
388 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.
388
[Syllabus]
388
[Syllabus]
388 PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1
[Syllabus]
388 OHIO V. ROBINETTE, 519 U.S. 33 (1996)
[Syllabus]
388
[Syllabus]
388 PIERCE COUNTY V. GUILLEN
[Syllabus]
Both the original 23 U. S. C. §409 and a 1995 amendment, which together protect information "compiled or collected" in connection with certain federal highway safety programs from being discovered or admitted in certain federal or state trials, fall within Congress' Commerce Clause power.
388
[Syllabus]
388 NORFOLK SOUTHERN R.CO. V. JAMES N. KIRBY,PTY LTD.
[Syllabus]
388 LIMTIACO V. CAMACHO
[Syllabus]
388 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
388 AT&T CORP. V. IOWA UTILITIES BD., 525 U.S. 366 (1999)
[Syllabus]
388
[Syllabus]
388 SHALALA V. ILLINOIS COUNCIL ON LONGTERM CARE, INC.
[Syllabus]
Whether 42 U.S.C. 405H(h), incorporated into the Medicare Act by 42 U.S.C. 1395ii, permits skilled nursing facilities participating in the Medicare program to obtain judicial review under 28 U.S.C.1331 and 1346 (1994 & Supp. II 1996) to challenge the validity of Medicare regulations.
388 FLORIDA V. POWELL
[Syllabus]
388 MARTIN V. FRANKLIN CAPITAL CORP.
[Syllabus]
388 UNITED STATES V. LARA
[Syllabus]
Whether Section 1301, as amended, of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301, validly restores an Indian tribe's sovereign power to prosecute members of other tribes, such that a federal prosecution following a tribal prosecution for an offense with the same elements is valid under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment.
388 KANSAS V. COLORADO
[Syllabus]
388 LOPEZ V. MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 519 U.S. 9 (1996)
[Syllabus]
388 CELOTEX CORP. V. EDWARDS, 514 U.S. 300 (1995).
[Syllabus]
388 STONE V. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (1995).
[Syllabus]
388 ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP V. CARLISLE
[Syllabus]
388 PERMANENT MISSION OF INDIA TO UNITED NATIONS V.CITY OF NEW YORK
[Syllabus]
388 STEWART V. MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL, 523 U.S. 637 (1998)
[Syllabus]
388 ENTERGY LA., INC. V. LOUISIANA PUB. SERV. COMMN
[Syllabus]
Whether Mississippi Power & light v. Mississippi ex rel. Moore, 487 U.S. 354 (1988), and Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg, 476 U.S. 953 (1986), require a state public utility commission to allow an electric utility member of a multi-state power system to recover, in retail rates, the costs allocated to it by a rate schedule of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), or whether the state commission has jurisdiction to decide that it was imprudent for such a utility to incur the costs allocated to it under a FERC rate schedule, thereby trapping such wholesale costs?
388 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:
388 SKINNER V. SWITZER
[Syllabus]
388
[Syllabus]
388
[Syllabus]
388 MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC. V. CARPENTER
[Syllabus]
388 UNITED STATES V. BEGGERLY, 524 U.S. 38 (1998)
[Syllabus]
388 SAMANTAR V. YOUSUF
[Syllabus]
388 DAVIS V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN
[Syllabus]
388 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
388
[Syllabus]
388
[Syllabus]
307 MONTANA V. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, 523 U.S. 696 (1998)
[Syllabus]
307 WHITMAN V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., INC.
[Syllabus]
1. Whether Section 109 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7409, as interpreted by the Environmental protection Agency (EPA) in setting revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter, effects an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. 2. Whether the court of appeals exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing, as a final agency action that is ripe for review, EPA's preliminary preamble statements on the scope of the agency's authority to implement the revised ""eight-hour"" ozone NAAQS. 3. Whether provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 specifically aimed at achieving the long delayed attainment of the then-existing ozone NAAQS restrict EPA's general authority under other provisions of the CAA to implement a new and more protective ozone NAAQS until the prior standard is attained."
307 PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
307 FIRST OPTIONS OF CHICAGO, INC. V. KAPLAN, 514 U.S. 938 (1995).
[Syllabus]
307 GRANITE ROCK CO. V. TEAMSTERS
[Syllabus]
307
[Syllabus]
307 GRUPO MEXICANO DE DESARROLLO, S. A. V. ALLIANCE BOND FUND, INC.
[Syllabus]
307 NELSON V. ADAMS USA, INC.
[Syllabus]
Whether a United States District Court, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, can assess attorney's fees against a non-party pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285 without first securing service of process upon, and jurisdiction over, that nonparty. Whether a non-party shareholder/officer of a corporate party which lost a patent infringement lawsuit on the merits is subject to an award of attorney fees pursuant to a statute (35 U.S.C. 285) that authorizes an award of attorney fees to the ''prevailing party"" but makes no reference as to the party who must pay the award."
307 HUNT V. CROMARTIE
[Syllabus]
307 BEHRENS V. PELLETIER, 516 U.S. 299 (1996).
[Syllabus]
307 GRAHAM COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATIONDIST. V.UNITED STATES EX REL. WILSON
[Syllabus]
307 CSX TRANSP., INC. V. GEORGIA STATE BD. OFEQUALIZATION
[Syllabus]
307 UTAH V. EVANS
[Syllabus]
The Census Bureau's use of "hot-deck imputation" to fill in gaps in census information and resolve conflicts in the data does not violate 13 U. S. C. §195, which forbids use of "the statistical method known as 'sampling' " in determining population for purposes of apportioning congressional Representatives, and is not inconsistent with the Constitution's Census Clause, which requires an "actual Enumeration" of each State's population.
307 BROWN V. PLATA
[Syllabus]
307 HAWAII V. OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS
[Syllabus]
307 WILL V. HALLOCK
[Syllabus]
307 SULLIVAN V. FINKELSTEIN, 496 U.S. 617 (1990)
[Syllabus]
307 NGUYEN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
307
[Syllabus]
307 EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. V. NEZTSOSIE
[Syllabus]
307 HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 117 S.CT. 1871, 138 L.ED.2D 135 (1997).
[Syllabus]
307 INTEL CORP. V. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
[Syllabus]
307 BURGESS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
307 CASS COUNTY V. LEECH LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, 524 U.S. 103 (1998)
[Syllabus]
307
[Syllabus]
307 HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC.
[Syllabus]
307 LACKAWANNA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYV. COSS
[Syllabus]
Title 28 U. S. C. §2254 does not provide a remedy when a state prisoner challenges a current sentence on the ground that it was enhanced based on an allegedly unconstitutional prior conviction for which the petitioner is no longer in custody.
307 FITZGERALD V. RACING ASSN. OF CENTRAL IOWA
[Syllabus]
Can the State of Iowa tax the revenue from slot machines at parimutuel racetracks and the revenue from all casino games on riverboats, including slot machines, at different rates without violating the Equal Protection Clause?
307 MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
[Syllabus]
307 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?"
307 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?
307 JOHNSON V. JONES, 515 U.S. 304 (1995).
[Syllabus]
307 NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSN.,INC. V. GULF POWER CO.
[Syllabus]
The Pole Attachments Act authorizes the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the rates that utilities charge for attachments providing high-speed Internet access at the same time as cable television and for attachments providing wireless telecommunications.
307 UNICODE VALUE='8195'>KAWASAKI KISEN KAISHA LTD. V. REGAL-BELOIT CORP.
[Syllabus]
307 UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INC. V. ESPINOSA
[Syllabus]
307 NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V.BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES
[Syllabus]
307 ARKANSAS V. FARM CREDIT SERVICES OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS, 520 U.S. 821 (1997)
[Syllabus]
307 COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK V. FLORIDA PREPAIDPOSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSE BD.
[Syllabus]
307 GASPERINI V. CENTER FOR HUMANITIES, INC., 517 U.S. 1102 (1996).
[Syllabus]
307
[Syllabus]
307 HENDERSON V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 654 (1996).
[Syllabus]
307
[Syllabus]
307
[Syllabus]
307
[Syllabus]
307
[Syllabus]
307
[Syllabus]
307 MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA
[Syllabus]
307 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.
307
[Syllabus]
307
[Syllabus]
194 NELSON V. CAMPBELL
[Syllabus]
Whether a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 by a death-sentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the procedures for carrying out the execution, is properly recharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254?
194 JEFFERSON COUNTY V. ACKER
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 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?
194 ARIZONA V. EVANS, 514 U.S. 1 (1995).
[Syllabus]
194 AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC. V. WINDSOR, 117 S.CT. 2231, 138 L.ED.2D 689 (1997).
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 155 (1998)
[Syllabus]
194 HUBBARD V. UNITED STATES, 514 U.S. 695 (1995).
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 RILEY V. KENNEDY
[Syllabus]
194 SEMTEK INTL INC. V. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP.
[Syllabus]
1. Is this Court's holding in Dupasseur-- that the resjudicata effect of the judgment of a federal court sitting in diversity ""is such as would belong to judgments of the State courts rendered under similar circumstances,"" and that ""no higher sanctity or effect can be claimed,"" 88 U. S. at 135-- still good law? 2. If Dupasseur is overruled or modified by this Court, what should be the res judicata effect of a statute of limitations dismissal in a federal court diversity suit?"
194 SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. ALABAMA
[Syllabus]
194 SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V. OREGON
[Syllabus]
194 CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORP. V. MALESKO
[Syllabus]
The limited holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, may not be extended to confer a right of action for damages against private entities acting under color of federal law.
194 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.
194 WALTERS V. METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC., 519 U.S. 202 (1997).
[Syllabus]
194 DANIELS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Petitioner, having failed to pursue available remedies to challenge his prior convictions, may not now use a 28 U. S. C. §2255 motion challenging his federal sentence to collaterally attack those convictions.
194
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP.
[Syllabus]
194 KANSAS V. MARSH
[Syllabus]
194 BRAY V. ALEXANDRIA WOMEN'S HEALTH CLINIC, 113 S. CT. 753 (1993).
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
[Syllabus]
Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
194 STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.V. CAMPBELL
[Syllabus]
Whether the Utah Supreme Court, in direct contravention of this Court's decision in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S.559 (1996), and fundamental principles of due process, committed constitutional error by reinstating a $145 million punitive damage award that punishes out-of-state conduct, is 145 time greater than the compensatory damages in the case, and is based upon the defendant's alleged business practices nationwide over a twenty year period, which were unrelated and dissimilar to the conduct by the defendant that gave rise to the plaintiff's claims?
194 AMERICAN ELEC. POWER CO. V. CONNECTICUT
[Syllabus]
194 EXXON SHIPPING CO. V. BAKER
[Syllabus]
194 COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE V. FEDERAL ELECTION COM'N, 518 U.S. 604 (1996)
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 SOSSAMON V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
194 PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
[Syllabus]
194 JOHNSON V. FANKELL, 520 U.S. 911 (1997).
[Syllabus]
194 SELL V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting petitioner's argument that allowing the government to administer antipsychotic medication against his will solely to render him competent to stand trial for non-violent offenses would violate his rights under the First Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
194
[Syllabus]
194 ALABAMA V. NORTH CAROLINA
[Syllabus]
194 GARLOTTE V. FORDICE, 515 U.S. 39 (1995).
[Syllabus]
194 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP. V. UNITED STATESEX REL. KIRK
[Syllabus]
194 TEXAS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 296 (1998)
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 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.
194
[Syllabus]
194 LEVIN V. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC.
[Syllabus]
194 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."
194 DEVLIN V. SCARDELLETTI
[Syllabus]
Nonnamed class members who have objected in a timely manner to approval of a settlement at a fairness hearing have the power to bring an appeal without first intervening in the lawsuit.
194 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).
194 CALDERON V. ASHMUS, 523 U.S. 740 (1998)
[Syllabus]
194 CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 416 (1996).
[Syllabus]
194 OWASSO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. I011V. FALVO
[Syllabus]
Peer grading-where students score each other's tests, papers, and assignments as the teacher explains the correct answers to the class-does not violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974's prohibition on the release of education records without parental consent.
194 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.
194 GUTIERREZ DE MARTINEZ V. LAMAGNO, 515 U.S. 417 (1995).
[Syllabus]
194 LILLY V. VIRGINIA
[Syllabus]
194 MORSE V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA, 517 U.S. 186 (1996).
[Syllabus]
194 OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. JEFFERSON LINES, 514 U.S. 175 (1995).
[Syllabus]
194 EDELMAN V. LYNCHBURG COLLEGE
[Syllabus]
An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation permitting an otherwise timely filer of a charge alleging job discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to verify the charge after the time for filing it has expired is an unassailable interpretation of §706 of that Act and is therefore valid.
194
[Syllabus]
194 CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. V. ADAMS
[Syllabus]
Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act-which excludes from that Act's coverage "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce"-exempts the employment contracts of transportation workers, but not other employment contracts.
194 UNITED STATES V. ALASKA, 117 S.CT. 1888, 138 L.ED.2D 231 (1997).
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 LUNDING V. NEW YORK TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL, 522 U.S. 287 (1998)
[Syllabus]
194 CASTRO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
When a United States District Court re-characterizes a pro-se federal prisoner's first post conviction motion as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. $2255, does such re-characterization render the prisoner's subsequent attempt to file a first titled §2255 petition a second or successive petition within the purview of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)'.'
194
[Syllabus]
194 JONES V. R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS CO.
[Syllabus]
Does the four-year catch-all limitations period of 28 U.S.C. §1658 apply to new causes of action created by public law 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which were codified at 42 U.S.C. §1981(a) and (b)?
194
[Syllabus]
194 UNITED STATES V. STEVENS
[Syllabus]
194 UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN, 524 U.S. 321 (1998)
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 SALAZAR V. BUONO
[Syllabus]
194 VIRGINIA V. MARYLAND
[Syllabus]
194 RANCHO PALOS VERDES V. ABRAMS
[Syllabus]
194 DOOLEY V. KOREAN AIR LINES CO., 524 U.S. 116 (1998)
[Syllabus]
194 FCC V. NEXTWAVE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS INC.
[Syllabus]
Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from revoking licenses held by a bankruptcy debtor upon the debtor's failure to make timely payments to the FCC for purchase of the licenses.
194 ALASKA V. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, 522 U.S. 520 (1998)
[Syllabus]
194 WALKER V. MARTIN
[Syllabus]
194 DEPARTMENT OF ARMY V. BLUE FOX, INC.
[Syllabus]
194 WILTON V. SEVEN FALLS CO., 515 U.S. 277 (1995).
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR V. YOUPEE, 519 U.S. 234 (1997).
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MFRS. OFAMERICA V. WALSH
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the federal Medicaid statue, 42 U. S. C. 1396 et seq., allows a state to use authority under that statute to compel drug manufacturers to subsidize price discounts on prescription drugs for non-Medicaid populations? 2. Whether a state may circumvent the Commerce Clause prohibition against regulating or taxing wholly out of state transactions by requiring an out-of-state manufacturer, which sells it products to wholesalers outside the state, to pay the state each time one of its products is subsequently sold by a retailer within the state?
194 VIRGINIA V. HICKS
[Syllabus]
1. May a criminal defendant escape conviction by invoking the overbreadth doctrine even though (I) his own offense did not involve any expressive conduct, and (ii) his conduct was not proscribed by that portion of the government statute, regulation or policy of the government statute, regulation or policy he challenges as overbroad? 2. In the context of government's attempts to exclude some non-residents from a public housing complex, does the Constitution recognize a distinction between actions taken by government as landlord and actions taken by government as sovereign?
194
[Syllabus]
194 NKEN V. HOLDER
[Syllabus]
194 GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP. V. BAZZLE
[Syllabus]
Whether the federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.1et seq., prohibits class-action procedures from being superimposed onto an arbitration agreement that does not provide for class action arbitration.
194 YAMAHA MOTOR CORP., U. S. A., V. CALHOUN, 516 U.S. 199 (1996)
[Syllabus]
194 MEDELLIN V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
194 DOLAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
194 EC TERM OF YEARS TRUST V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
194 DEGEN V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 820 (1996).
[Syllabus]
194 BROGAN V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 398 (1998)
[Syllabus]
194 VIMAR SEGUROS Y REASEGUROS, S. A. V. M/V SKY REEFER, 515 U.S. 528 (1995).
[Syllabus]
194 SHADY GROVE ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES, P. A.V. ALLSTATE INS. CO.
[Syllabus]
194 KIOWA TRIBE OF OK V. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 523 U.S. 751 (1998)
[Syllabus]
194 LOGAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
194 SUMMERS V. EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE
[Syllabus]
194 CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 FRIENDS OF EARTH, INC. V. LAIDLAW ENVI-RONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC.
[Syllabus]
1. Whether a citizen suit seeking civil penalties under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act is constitutionally moot under Steel Co. V. Citizens for Better Environment, 118 S. Ct. 1003 (1998), due to lack of redressability, where plaintiffs had standing at the time of the complaint and have shown continuing injury-in-fact but have not obtained injunctive relief. 2. Whether a citizen suit seeking civil penalties under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act is constitutionally moot under Steel Co., due to lack of redressability, when the district court has rendered a declaratory judgment as to liability and the issue of liability was contested. 3. Whether plaintiffs could not be awarded attorneys' fees or litigation costs not be awarded attorneys' fees or litigation costs because the case was dismissed for mootness, even if the litigation was responsible for bringing the defendant into compliance with the Clean Water Act.
194
[Syllabus]
194 CLEVELAND V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
1. Can alleged false statements or omissions in applications for state licenses be the basis for federal mail or wire fraud charges, on the theory that a license that has not yet been issued constitutes ""property"" of the State, of which the State is deprived when it issues the license? 2. Is materiality an element of the offense of mail fraud?"
194 MILLER V. FRENCH
[Syllabus]
The question presented is whether Section 3626(e) violates separation-of-powers principles by legislatively specifying a rule of decision or legislatively annulling a judgment."
194 GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP.-ALA. V. RANDOLPH
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that an order compelling arbitration and dismissing a lawsuit's underlying claims is a ""final decision with respect to an arbitration"" appealable under 9 U.S.C. 16 (a) (3). 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that arbitration provision that was ""silent"" on the issue of costs and fees was unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act because the risk that plaintiff "" be required to bear unknown costs and fees potentially undermined her ability to vindicate statutory rights."
194
[Syllabus]
194 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?
194 ERIE V. PAPS A. M.
[Syllabus]
Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States?
194 BARTLETT V. STRICKLAND
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 HUNT-WESSON, INC. V. FRANCHISE TAX BD. OF CAL.
[Syllabus]
1. Whether a State may tax constitutionally exempt income under the guise of denying a deduction for expenses in an amount equal to such income when there is no evidence that the expenses relate to the production of the exempt income? 2. Whether a state tax discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause by disallowing an otherwise deductible expense, thereby increasing California taxable income, solely because the corporation is not domiciled in the State or does not have subsidiaries that engage in taxable in-state activity?
194 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.
194 GEORGIA V. ASHCROFT
[Syllabus]
1. Whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Requires the Drawing of Safe Majority-Minority Districts with Super majority Minority Populations, Rather than Districts that Afford Minorities Equal Opportunities at Success? 2. Whether Section 5 can be Constitutionally Construed to require the Drawing of Supermajority Minority Legislative Districts in Order to Create Safe Seats, Rather than Seats that Afford Minorities Equal Opportunities at Success? 3. Whether Private Parties Should be Allowed to Intervene in a Section 5 Preclearance Action and Assume the Role and Authority of the Attorney General.
194 CALDERON V. THOMPSON, 523 U.S. 538 (1998)
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 HIBBS V. WINN
[Syllabus]
194 CIPOLLONE V. LIGGETT GROUP, 505 U.S. 504 (1992).
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 CLINTON V. JONES, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)
[Syllabus]
194 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)
[Syllabus]
194 HERCULES INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 417 (1996).
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 WILSON V. LAYNE
[Syllabus]
194 NO. 96-1671 RAINES V. BYRD, 521 U.S. 811 (1997)
[Syllabus]
194 GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADCASTING ASSN., INC.V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]