Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Did you mean labor or employment or NLRB?

Your query labor or employment or nlrb returned 213 results.

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

	HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Opinion]
	PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS [Opinion]
	NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP. [Opinion]
	HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Dissent]
	HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Syllabus]
	HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUNDS, INC. V. NLRB [Syllabus] Federal immigration policy, as expressed in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, foreclosed the National Labor Relations Board from awarding backpay to an undocumented alien who was never legally authorized to work in the United States.
	AUCIELLO IRON WORKS, INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD., 517 U.S. 781 (1996) [Syllabus]
	WARD'S COVE PACKING CO., INC. V. ANTONIO [Opinion]
	PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS [Dissent]
	PITTSBURGH PRESS CO. V. PITTSBURGH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS [Opinion]
	HOLLY FARMS CORP. ET AL. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD. ET AL., 517 U.S. 392 (1996) [Syllabus]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Dissent]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Opinion]
	NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP. [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concurrence]
	UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC V. WEBER [Opinion]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Concurrence]
	MARQUEZ V. SCREEN ACTORS [Syllabus]
	LITTON FINANCIAL PRINTING DIVISION V. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE V. SUDERS [Syllabus] When a hostile work environment created by a supervisor culminates in a constructive discharge, may the employer assert an affirmative defense?
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Dissent]
	CONNICK V. MYERS [Opinion]
	BOARD OF REGENTS OF STATE COLLEGES V. ROTH [Dissent]
	MARTIN V. WILKS [Opinion]
	WEST V. GIBSON [Syllabus]
	MERITOR SAVINGS BANK V. VINSON [Concurrence]
	BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Dissent]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Dissent]
	NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY [Dissent]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. CLAIBORNE HARDWARE CO. [Opinion]
	INS V. CHADHA [Dissent]
	UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC V. WEBER [Dissent]
	VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC. [Opinion]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON [Opinion]
	BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH [Opinion]
	HISHON V. KING & SPALDING [Opinion]
	PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS [Concurrence]
	TEST TWO V. TEST TWO [Syllabus]
	PITTSBURGH PRESS CO. V. PITTSBURGH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS [Dissent]
	EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Dissent]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Opinion]
	PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS [Concurrence]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Opinion]
	PATTERSON V. MCLEAN CREDIT UNION [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PATTERSON V. MCLEAN CREDIT UNION [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WARD'S COVE PACKING CO., INC. V. ANTONIO [Dissent]
	THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION [Opinion]
	HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG [Opinion]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Opinion]
	JOHNSON V. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY [Opinion]
	PATTERSON V. MCLEAN CREDIT UNION [Opinion]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ [Opinion]
	BOARD OF REGENTS OF STATE COLLEGES V. ROTH [Opinion]
	KEYISHIAN V. BOARD OF REGENTS [Opinion]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Opinion]
	MERITOR SAVINGS BANK V. VINSON [Opinion]
	GRIGGS V. DUKE POWER CO. [Opinion]
	FRAZEE V. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY [Opinion]
	HICKLIN V. ORBECK [Opinion]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Dissent]
	CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER V. MANHART [Opinion]
	THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION [Dissent]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Opinion]
	******** [Opinion]
	******** [Dissent]
	DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DEP'T OF LABOR V. NEWPORT [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT V. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, 519 U.S. 316 (1997) [Syllabus]
	FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 1784 V. STOTTS [Opinion]
	JOHNSON V. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY [Dissent]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Opinion]
	THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION [Syllabus]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Concurrence]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Concurrence]
	HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Concurrence]
	HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Concurrence]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Syllabus]
	OSBORN V. HALEY [Syllabus]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Dissent]
	FRAZEE V. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY [Syllabus]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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.
	BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH [Syllabus]
	HISHON V. KING & SPALDING [Syllabus]
	MARTIN V. WILKS [Dissent]
	TRUAX V. RAICH [Opinion]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Opinion]
	NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY [Opinion]
	SHERBERT V. VERNER [Opinion]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Opinion]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Syllabus]
	CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION V. LAFLEUR [Opinion]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON [Syllabus]
	NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INS. V. DARDEN, 503 U.S. 318 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ARKANSAS V. FARM CREDIT SERVICES OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS, 520 U.S. 821 (1997) [Syllabus]
	BRANZBURG V. HAYES [Opinion]
	GREER V. SPOCK [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Concurrence]
	COHEN V. COWLES MEDIA CO. [Dissent]
	GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF NEW KENT COUNTY [Opinion]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Dissent]
	MARSH V. CHAMBERS [Dissent]
	EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION V. ARABIAN AMERICAN OIL CO., 499 U.S. 244 (1991) [Syllabus]
	EEOC V. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC. [Syllabus] An agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes does not bar the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages, in an action to enforce Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
	WASHINGTON V. DAVIS [Opinion]
	ADLER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK [Opinion]
	NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATIONV. MORGAN [Syllabus] A plaintiff raising claims of discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must file his charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the appropriate 180- or 300-day statutory filing period, but a charge alleging a hostile work environment will not be time barred if all acts constituting the claim are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act falls within the filing period; in neither instance is a court precluded from applying equitable doctrines that may toll or limit the time period.
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG [Dissent]
	ADAIR V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [Opinion]
	SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES [Opinion]
	HOBBIE V. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM'N OF FLORIDA [Opinion]
	ULLMANN V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	BURLINGTON N. & S. F. R. CO. V. WHITE [Syllabus]
	GUTIERREZ DE MARTINEZ V. LAMAGNO, 515 U.S. 417 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. V. SPANNAUS [Opinion]
	SLOCHOWER V. BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF NEW YORK CITY [Opinion]
	BUILDING TRADES & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CAMDEN COUNTY AND VICINITY V. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN [Opinion]
	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.
	NLRB V. HEALTH CARE & RETIREMENT CORP., 114 S. CT. 1778, 128 L. ED. 2D 586 (1994) [Syllabus]
	NLRB V. KENTUCKY RIVER COMMUNITY CARE, INC. [Syllabus] The burden of proving supervisory status in a representation hearing and unfair-labor-practice proceeding falls on the employer, the party asserting supervisory status; the NLRB's categorical exclusion of professional judgments from the term "independent judgment" is inconsistent with the National Labor Relations Act.
	PERRY V. SINDERMANN [Opinion]
	SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. PARADISE [Opinion]
	IN RE PRIMUS [Opinion]
	CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO [Dissent]
	PAUL V. DAVIS [Opinion]
	PAUL V. DAVIS [Dissent]
	BOARD OF REGENTS OF STATE COLLEGES V. ROTH [Dissent]
	ALLENTOWN MACK SALES AND SERVICE, INC. V. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LEDBETTER V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. [Syllabus]
	ABF FREIGHT SYS. V. NLRB, 510 U.S. 317 (1994). [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSN. V. NLRB, 499 U.S. 606 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ONCALE V. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC. [Opinion]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Opinion]
	JOHNSON V. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY [Concurrence]
	WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION [Concurrence]
	FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 1784 V. STOTTS [Dissent]
	SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES [Dissent]
	FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK [Opinion]
	WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH [Dissent]
	CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Opinion]
	FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK [Concurrence]
	FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK [Dissent]
	PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS [Syllabus]
	WARD'S COVE PACKING CO., INC. V. ANTONIO [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. DARBY [Opinion]
	HOLDEN V. HARDY [Opinion]
	KEYISHIAN V. BOARD OF REGENTS [Syllabus]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Dissent]
	PAULEY V. BETHENERGY MINES, INC., 501 U.S. 680 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LOEWE V. LAWLOR [Opinion]
	ROMER V. EVANS [Opinion]
	PLYLER V. DOE [Opinion]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concurrence]
	BROADRICK V. OKLAHOMA [Opinion]
	DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Opinion]
	JOHNSON V. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY [Concurrence]
	CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN [Dissent]
	VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC. [Concurrence]
	BAILEY V. DREXEL FURNITURE COMPANY [Opinion]
	DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Dissent]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Concurrence]
	CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Concurrence]
	TRUAX V. RAICH [Syllabus]
	WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION [Opinion]
	WISCONSIN V. YODER [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. LOVETT [Opinion]
	JOHNSON V. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY [Syllabus]
	WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH [Opinion]
	WALTERS V. METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC., 519 U.S. 202 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CHANDRIS, INC. V. LATSIS, 515 U.S. 347 (1995). [Syllabus]
	DESERT PALACE, INC. V. COSTA [Syllabus] 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that direct evidence is not required in Title VII cases to trigger the application of the mixed-motive analysis set out in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins? 2. What are the appropriate standards for lower courts to follow in making a direct evidence determination in mixed-motive cases under Title VII?
	GILMER V. INTERSTATE/JOHNSON LANE CORP., 500 U.S. 20 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SCALES V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC V. WEBER [Syllabus]
	GRAVEL V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE [Dissent]
	MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO. [Dissent]
	WILSON V. NEW [Dissent]
	GRAHAM V. DEPARTMENT OF PUB. WELFARE [Opinion]
	GRIGGS V. DUKE POWER CO. [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. BUTTON [Opinion]
	SHELTON V. TUCKER [Opinion]
	CALIFANO V. GOLDFARB [Opinion]
	WASHINGTON V. DAVIS [Dissent]
	WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION [Dissent]
	ROBINSON V. SHELL OIL CO., 519 U.S. 337 (1997). [Syllabus]
	HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ [Syllabus]
	CITY OF RICHMOND V. J. A. CROSON CO. [Opinion]
	MERITOR SAVINGS BANK V. VINSON [Syllabus]
	AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 V. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC. [Opinion]
	ADAIR V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE [Opinion]
	AMBACH V. NORWICK [Opinion]
	HOLDEN V. HARDY [Syllabus]
	SHERBERT V. VERNER [Dissent]
	LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	BROADRICK V. OKLAHOMA [Dissent]
	ADAIR V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	ADLER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	CONNICK V. MYERS [Dissent]
	HELVERING V. DAVIS [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Dissent]
	CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO [Opinion]
	ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997). [Syllabus]
	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."
	FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. V. HOLOWECKI [Syllabus]
	WATERS V. CHURCHILL, 511 U.S. 661 (1994) [Syllabus]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GALLETTI [Syllabus] Whether, in order to enforce the derivative liability of partners for the tax debts of their partnership, the United States must make a separate assessment of the taxes owed by the partnership against each of the partners directly?
	HADDLE V. GARRISON [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.
	UNITED STATES V. CLEVELAND INDIANSBASEBALL CO. [Syllabus] Back wages are subject to FICA and FUTA taxes by reference to the year the wages are in fact paid.
	SWIERKIEWICZ V. SOREMA N. A. [Syllabus] A complaint in an employment discrimination lawsuit need not contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, but instead must contain only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2).
	[Syllabus]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON [Dissent]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT [Opinion]
	WILSON V. NEW [Opinion]
	MARTIN V. WILKS [Syllabus]
	BARENBLATT V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	PATTERSON V. MCLEAN CREDIT UNION [Syllabus]
	PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS [Concurrence]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Syllabus]
	PATTERSON V. MCLEAN CREDIT UNION [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SLOCHOWER V. BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF NEW YORK CITY [Dissent]
	******** [Syllabus]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Concurrence]
	PATTERSON V. MCLEAN CREDIT UNION [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES [Dissent]
	PITTSBURGH PRESS CO. V. PITTSBURGH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS [Dissent]
	BOARD OF REGENTS OF STATE COLLEGES V. ROTH [Syllabus]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PITTSBURGH PRESS CO. V. PITTSBURGH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS [Syllabus]
	FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 1784 V. STOTTS [Concurrence]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	FRONTIERO V. RICHARDSON [Opinion]
	GIBBONS V. OGDEN [Opinion]
	HARBOR TUG & BARGE CO. V. PAPAI ET UX., 520 U.S. 548 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CLACKAMAS GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCIATES,P. C. V. WELLS [Syllabus] Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. is a medical clinic formed as a professional corporation but which operates and has legal attributes of a partnership. The question presented is whether a federal court should apply an economic realities test to determine if the Clinic's physician-shareholders are counted as employees for the purpose of determining if the Clinic is a covered entity subject to the ADA and other federal antidiscrimination states. In this case, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the physician-shareholders are employees. The court below rejected the holdings of the Seventh, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits which used an economic realities test. Instead, it adopted the reasoning of the Second Circuit which rejected that test.
	KOON V. UNITED STATES, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL LABORERS’ PENSION FUND V. HEINZ [Syllabus] Whether an amendment to a multiemployer pension plan that provides for the suspension of the payment of early retirement benefits during the period that a participant, after retiring, is employed by another firm in the same industry is a prohibited elimination or reduction of such benefits under the "anti-cutback" rule in Section 204(g) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1054(g), when applied to employees who retired prior to adoption of the amendment.
	UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 499 U.S. 160 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LOCKHEED CORP. ET AL. V. SPINK, 517 U.S. 882 (1996). [Syllabus]
	KOLSTAD V. AMERICAN DENTAL ASSN. [Syllabus]
	AUTOMOBILE WORKERS V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., 499 US.187 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. CITY OF JACKSON [Syllabus]
	INGERSOLL-RAND CO. V. MCCLENDON, 498 U.S. 133 (1990) [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK & WESTERN R. CO. V. AYERS [Syllabus] Mental anguish damages resulting from the fear of developing cancer may be recovered under the Federal Employers' Liability Act by a railroad worker suffering from the actionable injury asbestosis caused by work-related exposure to asbestos; the FELA's express terms, reinforced by consistent judicial applications of the Act, allow such a worker to recover his entire damages from a railroad whose negligence jointly caused his injury, thus placing on the railroad the burden of seeking contribution from other potential tortfeasors.
	LONG ISLAND CARE AT HOME, LTD. V. COKE [Syllabus]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Syllabus]
	A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS [Opinion]
	SHERBERT V. VERNER [Concurrence]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Opinion]
	ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC. [Concurrence]
	ADLER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Opinion]
	GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. E. C. KNIGHT COMPANY [Dissent]
	LORETTO V. TELEPROMPTER MANHATTAN CATV CORP. [Opinion]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PLYLER V. DOE [Dissent]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Opinion]
	COX V. LOUISIANA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	NIXON V. FITZGERALD [Opinion]
	UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC V. WEBER [Dissent]
	GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY [Dissent]
	RANKIN V. MCPHERSON [Opinion]
	KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Opinion]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ROBERTS V. UNITED STATES JAYCEES [Concurrence]
	COX V. LOUISIANA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CALIFANO V. GOLDFARB [Dissent]
	MCCLESKEY V. KEMP [Dissent]
	AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 V. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC. [Dissent]
	WILSON V. NEW [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. BROWN [Opinion]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS [Opinion]
	BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE [Opinion]
	HOBBIE V. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM'N OF FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Syllabus]
	DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Dissent]
	SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES, INC. [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."
	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.
	UNITED STATES V. FIOR D’ITALIA, INC. [Syllabus] In assessing a restaurant for Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes based upon tips that its employees may have received but did not report, the Internal Revenue Service is authorized to use an aggregate estimate of all tips that the restaurant's customers paid its employees.
	OUBRE V. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC., 522 U.S. 422 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BECK V. PRUPIS [Syllabus] Whether an employee who is terminated for both blowing the whistle on and refusing to participate in a pattern of predicated acts of racketeering forbidden by the Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act (""RICO""), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., may assert a civil RICO conspiracy claim, where he has been injured by an overt act in furtherance of the RICO conspiracy, which overt act is not, itself, a predicate act of racketeering (a question as to which the circuit courts of appeal are in direct conflict).
	UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, 513 U.S. 454 (1995). [Syllabus]
	GREGORY V. ASHCROFT, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) [Syllabus]
	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.
	WATSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CUTTER V. WILKINSON [Syllabus]
	BAILEY V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 137 (1996). [Syllabus]
	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.
	AIR LINE PILOTS V. O'NEILL, 499 U.S. 65 (1991) [Syllabus]
	GENERAL DYNAMICS LAND SYSTEMS, INC. V. CLINE [Syllabus] Whether the Court of appeals erred in holding, contrary to decisions of the First and Seventh Circuits, that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621-634, prohibits reverse discrimination, I.e., employer action practices, or policies that treat older workers more favorably than younger workers who are at least 40 years old.
	ASTORIA FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION V. SOLIMINO, 501 U.S. 104 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LACHANCE V. ERICKSON, 522 U.S. 262 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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.
	MCKENNON V. NASHVILLE BANNER PUBLISHING CO., 513 U.S. 352 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS, WABAUNSEE COUNTY, KAN. V. UMBEHR, 518 U.S.668 (1996) [Syllabus]
	LEHNERY V. FERRIS FACULTY ASSN., 500 U.S. 507 (1991) [Syllabus]
	AIR COURIER CONFERENCE V. POSTAL WORKERS, 498 U.S. 517 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HAZEN PAPER V. BIGGINS, 507 U.S. 604 (1993). [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. BUTTON [Dissent]
	SCALES V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS [Opinion]
	PLYLER V. DOE [Concurrence]
	COHEN V. COWLES MEDIA CO. [Opinion]
	SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK V. FERBER [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Dissent]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. PARADISE [Syllabus]
	RANKIN V. MCPHERSON [Dissent]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Concurrence]
	CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN [Dissent]
	BRANZBURG V. HAYES [Dissent]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Dissent]
	BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC. [Dissent]
	MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO. [Opinion]
	CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND [Opinion]
	CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Concurrence]
	BERGER V. NEW YORK [Dissent]
	SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON [Opinion]
	HAMMER V. DAGENHART [Opinion]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Dissent]
	PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [Opinion]
	GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Dissent]
	AMBACH V. NORWICK [Dissent]
	VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS V. METROPOLITAN [Opinion]
	MUNN V. ILLINOIS [Opinion]
	WELSH V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND [Dissent]
	ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC. [Opinion]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Dissent]
	HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION [Opinion]
	WENGLER V. DRUGGISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. [Opinion]
	SHERBERT V. VERNER [Syllabus]
	HISHON V. KING & SPALDING [Concurrence]
	STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CITY OF RICHMOND V. J. A. CROSON CO. [Dissent]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT [Concurrence]
	BUILDING TRADES & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CAMDEN COUNTY AND VICINITY V. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN [Dissent]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. V. SPANNAUS [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC. [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ [Concurrence]
	IN RE DEBS [Opinion]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIANA V. WHITCOMB [Opinion]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. QUARLES [Dissent]
	LLOYD CORP., LTD. V. TANNER [Dissent]
	IN RE DEBS [Syllabus]
	UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC V. WEBER [Concurrence]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER []
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Opinion]
	ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. V. PENA [Dissent]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN [Opinion]
	CIVIL RIGHTS CASES [Dissent]
	HELVERING V. DAVIS [Syllabus]
	UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION V. LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD CO. [Opinion]
	PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS [Concurrence]
	CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. V. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. [Opinion]
	WASHINGTON V. DAVIS [Concurrence]
	YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC. [Dissent]
	GRAVEL V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WIDMAR V. VINCENT [Dissent]
	PITTSBURGH PRESS CO. V. PITTSBURGH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS [Dissent]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. PATTERSON [Opinion]
	GOSS V. LOPEZ [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	R.A.V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL [Concurrence]
	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.
	POLLARD V. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. [Syllabus] Front pay is not an element of compensatory damages under 42 U. S. C. §1981a and thus is not subject to the damages cap imposed by §1981a(b)(3).
	COHEN V. COWLES MEDIA CO., 501 U.S. 663 (1991) [Syllabus]
	WOODFORD V. NGO [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BURKE, 504 U.S. 229 (1992). [Syllabus]
	O'HARE TRUCK SERVICE, INC. V. CITY OF NORTHLAKE 518 U.S. 712 (1996) [Syllabus]
	LANDGRAF V. USI FILM PRODS., 511 U.S. 244 (1994). [Syllabus]
	BUILDING & CONSTR. TRADES COUNCIL OF THE METRO. DIST. V. ASSOCIATED BUILDERS [Syllabus]
	LOCAL 144 NURSING HOME PENSION FUND V. DEMISAY, 508 U.S. 581 (1993). [Syllabus]
	BELL ATLANTIC CORP. V. TWOMBLY [Syllabus]
	CLEVELAND V. POLICY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CORP. [Syllabus]
	BATH IRON WORKS V. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, 506 [Syllabus]
	LEOCAL V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus]
	MUSCARELLO V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 125 (1998) [Syllabus]
	JOHN R. SAND & GRAVEL CO. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ALBRIGHT V. OLIVER, 510 U.S. 266 (1994). [Syllabus]
	MADSEN V. WOMEN'S HEALTH CTR., 512 U.S. 753 (1994). [Syllabus]
	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?
	RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997). [Syllabus]
	WRIGHT V. UNIVERSAL MARITIME SERVICE CORP. [Syllabus]
	BAKER BY THOMAS V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. WILANDER, 498 U.S. 337 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HOUSEHOLD CREDIT SERVICES, INC. V. PFENNIG [Syllabus] Whether the Federal Reserve Board reasonably classified a fee imposed by a credit card lender because a consumer has exceeded the credit limit as one of the "other charges which may be imposed" under the account [15 U.S.C. 1637(a)(5)] rather than as a "finance charge" [15 U.S.C. 1605(a)], within the meaning of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq?
	CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORP. V. GOTTSHALL, 114 S. CT. 2396, 129 L. ED. 2D 427 (1994) [Syllabus]
	TOYOTA MOTOR MFG., KY., INC. V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus] The Sixth Circuit did not apply the proper standard in determining that respondent was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 because that court analyzed only a limited class of manual tasks and failed to ask whether respondent's impairments prevented or restricted her from performing tasks that are of central importance to most people's daily lives.
	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)?
	N.L.R.B. V. TOWN & COUNTRY ELEC, INC., ET, 516 U.S. 85 (1995) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Syllabus] 1. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981, the provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 that creates a private right of action for victims of gender-motivated violence, is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. 2. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981 is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
	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.
	ST. MARY'S HONOR CTR. V. HICKS, 509 U.S. 502 (1993). [Syllabus]
	DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DOL V. GREENWICH COLLIERIES, 512 U.S. 267 (1994) [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	CAMPS NEWFOUND/OWATONNA, INC. V. TOWN OF HARRISON, 520 U.S. 564 (1997) [Syllabus]
	AIR LINE PILOTS V. MILLER, 523 U.S. 866 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LIVADAS V. BRADSHAW, 512 U.S. 107 (1994). [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.
	NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMIN. V. FIRST NAT. BANK & TRUST CO., 522 U.S. 479 (1998) [Syllabus]
	TAYLOR V. FREELAND & KRONZ, 503 U.S. 638 (1992). [Syllabus]
	OFFICE OF SEN. MARK DAYTON V. HANSON [Syllabus]
	O'CONNOR V. CONSOLIDATED COIN CATERERS CORP., 517 U.S. 308 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL. V. EVANS ET AL., 517 U.S. 620 (1996). [Syllabus]
	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?
	ROBERTSON V. SEATTLE AUDUBON SOC'Y, 503 U.S. 429 (1992). [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. FANKELL, 520 U.S. 911 (1997). [Syllabus]
	ALBERTSONS, INC. V. KIRKINGBURG [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.
	CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. V. ECHAZABAL [Syllabus] The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 permits an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation authorizing an employer to refuse to hire a disabled individual because his performance on the job would endanger his own health.
	YAMAHA MOTOR CORP., U. S. A., V. CALHOUN, 516 U.S. 199 (1996) [Syllabus]
	BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GEBSER V. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SIEGERT V. GILLEY, 500 U.S. 226 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MURPHY V. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. [Syllabus]
	REEVES V. SANDERSON PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC. [Syllabus] 1. Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, is direct evidence of discriminatory intent required to avoid judgment as a matter of law for the employer? 2. In determining whether to grant judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, should a District Judge weigh all of the evidence or consider only the evidence favoring the non-movant? 3. Whether the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 is the same as the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50?"
	GADE V. NATIONAL SOLID WASTES MGMT. ASS'N, 505 U.S. 88 (1992). [Syllabus]
	GEISSAL V. MOORE MEDICAL CORP., 524 U.S. 74 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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?
	BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	IRWIN V. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) [Syllabus]
	PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. HASLIP, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) [Syllabus]
	INTER MODAL RAIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY, 520 U.S. 510 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI BABALU AYE V. CITY OF HIALEAH, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). [Syllabus]
	DOGGETT V. UNITED STATES, 505 U.S. 647 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ROCKWELL INT L CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997). [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER V. SCHLEIER, 515 U.S. 323 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HILL V. COLORADO [Syllabus] 1. Does Colorado's statutory requirement that speakers obtain consent from passersby on public sidewalks and streets before speaking, displaying signs, or distributing leaflets unconstitutionally burden protected expressive rights in a traditional public forum? 2.Does Colorado's statutory designation of private citizens as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets on public streets and sidewalks impose an unconstitutional prior restraint? 3. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit content-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets subject to strict scrutiny? 4. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit viewpoint-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets unconstitutional per se?
	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.
	SUMMIT HEALTH, LTD. V. PINHAS, 500 U.S. 322 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SAUDI ARABIA V. NELSON, 507 U.S. 349 (1993). [Syllabus]
	REGIONS HOSPITAL V. SHALALA, 522 U.S. 448 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO. V. MENDELSOHN [Syllabus]
	RITA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. PRO FOOTBALL, INC.., 518 U.S. 231 (1996) [Syllabus]
	POSTAL SERVICE V. GREGORY [Syllabus] The Merit Systems Protection Board may review independently prior disciplinary actions pending in grievance proceedings when reviewing termination and other serious disciplinary actions.
	AUER V. ROBBINS, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MOREAU V. KLEVENHAGEN, 508 U.S. 22 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. DOE [Syllabus] Because Alaska's "Megan's Law" is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
	STANFORD V. KENTUCKY [Dissent]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	COHEN V. COWLES MEDIA CO. [Syllabus]
	ROBERTS V. UNITED STATES JAYCEES [Opinion]
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	ALLEN V. WRIGHT [Opinion]
	HUMPHREY'S EXECUTOR V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	CALIFANO V. GOLDFARB [Concurrence]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. LOVETT [Concurrence]
	MUNN V. ILLINOIS [Syllabus]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Concurrence]
	WARTH V. SELDIN [Opinion]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Opinion]
	DAVIS V. ALASKA [Opinion]
	SOUTH CAROLINA V. KATZENBACH [Opinion]
	ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. V. PENA [Dissent]
	FUENTES V. SHEVIN [Opinion]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. BUTTON [Syllabus]
	APTHEKER V. SECRETARY OF STATE [Opinion]
	BEAL V. DOE [Dissent]
	AFROYIM V. RUSK [Opinion]
	HOBBIE V. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM'N OF FLORIDA [Concurrence]
	MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. V. TORNILLO [Opinion]
	HARLOW V. FITZGERALD [Syllabus]
	COHENS V. VIRGINIA [Syllabus]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Concurrence]
	STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [Syllabus]
	WILSON V. NEW [Concurrence]
	MULLER V. OREGON [Opinion]
	METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [Dissent]
	REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA V. WHITE [Concurrence]
	BOOTH V. MARYLAND [Opinion]
	PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Dissent]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Opinion]
	HOBBIE V. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM'N OF FLORIDA [Dissent]
	ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Dissent]
	CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION V. LAFLEUR [Concurrence]
	PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL V. HALDERMAN [Dissent]
	NEBRASKA PRESS ASSN. V. STUART [Concurrence]
	MULLER V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Opinion]
	LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Dissent]
	RANKIN V. MCPHERSON [Concurrence]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HOBBIE V. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM'N OF FLORIDA [Concurrence]
	INTERNATIONAL SHOE V. STATE OF WASHINGTON [Opinion]
	BROADRICK V. OKLAHOMA [Dissent]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Opinion]
	BAILEY V. DREXEL FURNITURE COMPANY [Syllabus]
	HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL [Opinion]
	HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG [Concurrence]
	LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL [Dissent]
	CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Syllabus]
	GEORGIA V. MCCOLLUM [Dissent]
	MORGAN V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. BREWSTER [Opinion]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Concurrence]
	METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [Concurrence]
	BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO [Opinion]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MONROE V. PAPE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CALIFANO V. GOLDFARB [Syllabus]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Concurrence]
	FRISBY V. SCHULTZ [Dissent]
	BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	YOUNGER V. HARRIS [Opinion]
	REID V. COVERT [Dissent]
	COX V. LOUISIANA [Opinion]
	CRAIG V. BOREN [Opinion]
	SCHNEIDER V. RUSK [Opinion]
	BIGELOW V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	JONES V. ALFRED H. MAYER CO. [Opinion]
	THORNHILL V. ALABAMA [Opinion]
	MONROE V. PAPE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK [Concurrence]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Dissent]
	GOLDBERG V. KELLY [Opinion]
	LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Opinion]
	FRISBY V. SCHULTZ [Dissent]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Opinion]
	PAUL V. DAVIS [Syllabus]
	MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	R.A.V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL [Concurrence]
	PLYLER V. DOE [Syllabus]
	PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. PARADISE [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE [Opinion]
	PERRY V. SINDERMANN [Syllabus]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC. [Opinion]
	WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION [Syllabus]
	METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [Opinion]
	HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	KENT V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	BENTON V. MARYLAND [Dissent]
	CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER V. MANHART [Concurrence]
	POWELL V. ALABAMA [Opinion]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Concurrence]
	SHELTON V. TUCKER [Syllabus]
	DENNIS V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Opinion]
	BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC. [Syllabus]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL []
	SHELTON V. TUCKER [Dissent]
	ROMER V. EVANS [Syllabus]
	STREET V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Dissent]
	HUDSON V. PALMER [Opinion]
	GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Dissent]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Dissent]
	BATSON V. KENTUCKY [Opinion]
	PEREZ V. BROWNELL [Opinion]
	WIDMAR V. VINCENT [Opinion]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Syllabus]
	HOUSTON EAST AND WEST TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE [Dissent]
	WORCESTER V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE V. PIPER [Opinion]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Syllabus]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	SLOCHOWER V. BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF NEW YORK CITY [Syllabus]
	HARLOW V. FITZGERALD [Opinion]
	ROSTKER V. GOLDBERG [Dissent]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Concurrence]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Opinion]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Opinion]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Dissent]
	GOSS V. LOPEZ [Dissent]
	HICKLIN V. ORBECK [Syllabus]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL [Opinion]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Dissent]
	POWERS V. OHIO [Dissent]
	WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION [Dissent]
	PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS [Concurrence]
	LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Opinion]
	GEORGIA V. MCCOLLUM [Opinion]
	ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. V. SPANNAUS [Dissent]
	FREEMAN V. PITTS [Concurrence]
	REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA V. WHITE [Dissent]
	JUREK V. TEXAS [Opinion]
	A BOOK NAMED "JOHN CLELAND'S MEMOIRS OF A WOMAN OF PLEASURE" V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS [Dissent]
	R.A.V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL [Opinion]
	SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT V. RODRIGUEZ [Opinion]
	GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Dissent]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	GREGG V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	SAINT FRANCIS COLLEGE V. AL-KHAZRAJI [Opinion]
	MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE V. SITZ [Dissent]
	MCCLESKEY V. KEMP [Opinion]
	CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION V. LAFLEUR [Dissent]
	SAINT FRANCIS COLLEGE V. AL-KHAZRAJI [Concurrence]
	FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK [Syllabus]
	TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON [Opinion]
	THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS [Dissent]
	ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	LUGAR V. EDMONDSON OIL CO., INC. [Opinion]
	CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER V. MANHART [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	NIXON V. FITZGERALD [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Syllabus]
	POLICE DEP'T V. MOSLEY [Opinion]
	LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL [Opinion]
	INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC. V. LEE [Concurrence]
	CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. JONES [Opinion]
	APTHEKER V. SECRETARY OF STATE [Dissent]
	ARGERSINGER V. HAMLIN [Opinion]
	SCHLESINGER V. RESERVISTS COMMITTEE TO STOP THE WAR [Opinion]
	CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N [Dissent]
	MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN [Opinion]
	HARLOW V. FITZGERALD [Dissent]
	PENNSYLVANIA V. NELSON [Opinion]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. BUTTON [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BUCHANAN V. WARLEY [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Opinion]
	ROSENBLOOM V. METROMEDIA [Dissent]
	CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Concurrence]
	HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DIST. V. KUHLMEIER [Opinion]
	CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER V. MANHART [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. MILLER [Opinion]
	RANKIN V. MCPHERSON [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. BUTTON [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	JOHNSON V. ROBISON [Opinion]
	FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 1784 V. STOTTS [Concurrence]
	SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. E. C. KNIGHT COMPANY [Opinion]
	POWELL V. MCCORMACK [Dissent]
	BATSON V. KENTUCKY [Dissent]
	CITY OF RICHMOND V. J. A. CROSON CO. [Concurrence]
	BUILDING TRADES & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CAMDEN COUNTY AND VICINITY V. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN [Syllabus]
	BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC. [Concurrence]
	ROMER V. EVANS [Dissent]
	SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON [Dissent]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Dissent]
	FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK [Dissent]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Concurrence]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	TERRY V. OHIO [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. O'BRIEN [Opinion]
	GRAVEL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH [Syllabus]
	COHEN V. COWLES MEDIA CO. [Dissent]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Dissent]
	IN RE NEAGLE [Opinion]
	TEXAS V. WHITE [Opinion]
	GOSS V. LOPEZ [Syllabus]
	SHELTON V. TUCKER [Dissent]
	MUNN V. ILLINOIS [Dissent]
	ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. V. PENA [Opinion]
	HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUNDS, INC. V. NLRB [Syllabus] Federal immigration policy, as expressed in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, foreclosed the National Labor Relations Board from awarding backpay to an undocumented alien who was never legally authorized to work in the United States.
	LITTON FINANCIAL PRINTING DIVISION V. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MARQUEZ V. SCREEN ACTORS [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE V. SUDERS [Syllabus] When a hostile work environment created by a supervisor culminates in a constructive discharge, may the employer assert an affirmative defense?
	TEST TWO V. TEST TWO [Syllabus]
	NLRB V. KENTUCKY RIVER COMMUNITY CARE, INC. [Syllabus] The burden of proving supervisory status in a representation hearing and unfair-labor-practice proceeding falls on the employer, the party asserting supervisory status; the NLRB's categorical exclusion of professional judgments from the term "independent judgment" is inconsistent with the National Labor Relations Act.
	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.
	ALLENTOWN MACK SALES AND SERVICE, INC. V. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359 (1998) [Syllabus]
	AUCIELLO IRON WORKS, INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD., 517 U.S. 781 (1996) [Syllabus]
	PAULEY V. BETHENERGY MINES, INC., 501 U.S. 680 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HOLLY FARMS CORP. ET AL. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD. ET AL., 517 U.S. 392 (1996) [Syllabus]
	ABF FREIGHT SYS. V. NLRB, 510 U.S. 317 (1994). [Syllabus]
	NLRB V. HEALTH CARE & RETIREMENT CORP., 114 S. CT. 1778, 128 L. ED. 2D 586 (1994) [Syllabus]
	ARKANSAS V. FARM CREDIT SERVICES OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS, 520 U.S. 821 (1997) [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSN. V. NLRB, 499 U.S. 606 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LEDBETTER V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. PRO FOOTBALL, INC.., 518 U.S. 231 (1996) [Syllabus]
	LIVADAS V. BRADSHAW, 512 U.S. 107 (1994). [Syllabus]
	LONG ISLAND CARE AT HOME, LTD. V. COKE [Syllabus]
	BUILDING & CONSTR. TRADES COUNCIL OF THE METRO. DIST. V. ASSOCIATED BUILDERS [Syllabus]
	WEST V. GIBSON [Syllabus]
	LEHNERY V. FERRIS FACULTY ASSN., 500 U.S. 507 (1991) [Syllabus]
	AIR COURIER CONFERENCE V. POSTAL WORKERS, 498 U.S. 517 (1991) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	N.L.R.B. V. TOWN & COUNTRY ELEC, INC., ET, 516 U.S. 85 (1995) [Syllabus]
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	AIR LINE PILOTS V. O'NEILL, 499 U.S. 65 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MOREAU V. KLEVENHAGEN, 508 U.S. 22 (1993). [Syllabus]
	AIR LINE PILOTS V. MILLER, 523 U.S. 866 (1998) [Syllabus]
	AUER V. ROBBINS, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). [Syllabus]
	DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DOL V. GREENWICH COLLIERIES, 512 U.S. 267 (1994) [Syllabus]
	POLLARD V. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. [Syllabus] Front pay is not an element of compensatory damages under 42 U. S. C. §1981a and thus is not subject to the damages cap imposed by §1981a(b)(3).
	OSBORN V. HALEY [Syllabus]
	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.
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WRIGHT V. UNIVERSAL MARITIME SERVICE CORP. [Syllabus]
	GADE V. NATIONAL SOLID WASTES MGMT. ASS'N, 505 U.S. 88 (1992). [Syllabus]
	HILL V. COLORADO [Syllabus] 1. Does Colorado's statutory requirement that speakers obtain consent from passersby on public sidewalks and streets before speaking, displaying signs, or distributing leaflets unconstitutionally burden protected expressive rights in a traditional public forum? 2.Does Colorado's statutory designation of private citizens as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets on public streets and sidewalks impose an unconstitutional prior restraint? 3. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit content-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets subject to strict scrutiny? 4. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit viewpoint-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets unconstitutional per se?
	LOCAL 144 NURSING HOME PENSION FUND V. DEMISAY, 508 U.S. 581 (1993). [Syllabus]
	NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INS. V. DARDEN, 503 U.S. 318 (1992). [Syllabus]
	EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION V. ARABIAN AMERICAN OIL CO., 499 U.S. 244 (1991) [Syllabus]
	EEOC V. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC. [Syllabus] An agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes does not bar the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages, in an action to enforce Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF DEFENSE V. F.L.R.A., 510 U.S. 487 (1994). [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATIONV. MORGAN [Syllabus] A plaintiff raising claims of discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must file his charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the appropriate 180- or 300-day statutory filing period, but a charge alleging a hostile work environment will not be time barred if all acts constituting the claim are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act falls within the filing period; in neither instance is a court precluded from applying equitable doctrines that may toll or limit the time period.
	BURLINGTON N. & S. F. R. CO. V. WHITE [Syllabus]
	GUTIERREZ DE MARTINEZ V. LAMAGNO, 515 U.S. 417 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT V. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, 519 U.S. 316 (1997) [Syllabus]
	PRESTON V. FERRER [Syllabus]
	DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DEP'T OF LABOR V. NEWPORT [Syllabus]
	NASA V. FLRA [Syllabus]
	LUJAN V. G & G FIRE SPRINKLERS, INC. [Syllabus] Because California law affords respondent public works project subcontractor sufficient opportunity to pursue its claim for payment under its contracts in state court, the statutory scheme does not deprive respondent of due process when it authorizes the State to order withholding of such payments from the contractor if a subcontractor fails to comply with certain Labor Code requirements; permits the contractor, in turn, to withhold similar sums from the subcontractor; and permits the contractor, or his assignee, to sue the awarding body for alleged breach of the contract.
	INGALLS SHIPBUILDING, INC. V. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, 519 U.S. 248 (1997) [Syllabus]
	DOE V. CHAO [Syllabus]
	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.
	DESERT PALACE, INC. V. COSTA [Syllabus] 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that direct evidence is not required in Title VII cases to trigger the application of the mixed-motive analysis set out in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins? 2. What are the appropriate standards for lower courts to follow in making a direct evidence determination in mixed-motive cases under Title VII?
	GILMER V. INTERSTATE/JOHNSON LANE CORP., 500 U.S. 20 (1991) [Syllabus]
	WALTERS V. METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC., 519 U.S. 202 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CHANDRIS, INC. V. LATSIS, 515 U.S. 347 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SPECTOR V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. [Syllabus]
	ROBINSON V. SHELL OIL CO., 519 U.S. 337 (1997). [Syllabus]
	TRIVONA CORP. V. MICHIGAN DEPT. OF TREASURY, 498 U.S. 358 (1991) [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL EMPLOYEES V. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 526 U.S. 86 (1999) [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. V. HOLOWECKI [Syllabus]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) [Syllabus]
	WATERS V. CHURCHILL, 511 U.S. 661 (1994) [Syllabus]
	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."
	ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997). [Syllabus]
	HAWAIIAN AIRLINES V. NORRIS, 512 U.S. 246 (1994). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CLEVELAND INDIANSBASEBALL CO. [Syllabus] Back wages are subject to FICA and FUTA taxes by reference to the year the wages are in fact paid.
	UNITED STATES V. GALLETTI [Syllabus] Whether, in order to enforce the derivative liability of partners for the tax debts of their partnership, the United States must make a separate assessment of the taxes owed by the partnership against each of the partners directly?
	SWIERKIEWICZ V. SOREMA N. A. [Syllabus] A complaint in an employment discrimination lawsuit need not contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, but instead must contain only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2).
	HADDLE V. GARRISON [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.
	CLACKAMAS GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCIATES,P. C. V. WELLS [Syllabus] Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. is a medical clinic formed as a professional corporation but which operates and has legal attributes of a partnership. The question presented is whether a federal court should apply an economic realities test to determine if the Clinic's physician-shareholders are counted as employees for the purpose of determining if the Clinic is a covered entity subject to the ADA and other federal antidiscrimination states. In this case, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the physician-shareholders are employees. The court below rejected the holdings of the Seventh, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits which used an economic realities test. Instead, it adopted the reasoning of the Second Circuit which rejected that test.
	CHRISTENSEN V. HARRIS COUNTY [Syllabus] Whether a public agency governed by the compensatory time provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. 207 (o), may absent a preexisting agreement, require its employees to use accrued compensatory time."
	SMITH V. CITY OF JACKSON [Syllabus]
	HARBOR TUG & BARGE CO. V. PAPAI ET UX., 520 U.S. 548 (1997). [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?
	LOCKHEED CORP. ET AL. V. SPINK, 517 U.S. 882 (1996). [Syllabus]
	KOLSTAD V. AMERICAN DENTAL ASSN. [Syllabus]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	INGERSOLL-RAND CO. V. MCCLENDON, 498 U.S. 133 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 499 U.S. 160 (1991) [Syllabus]
	AUTOMOBILE WORKERS V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., 499 US.187 (1991) [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL LABORERS’ PENSION FUND V. HEINZ [Syllabus] Whether an amendment to a multiemployer pension plan that provides for the suspension of the payment of early retirement benefits during the period that a participant, after retiring, is employed by another firm in the same industry is a prohibited elimination or reduction of such benefits under the "anti-cutback" rule in Section 204(g) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1054(g), when applied to employees who retired prior to adoption of the amendment.
	NORFOLK & WESTERN R. CO. V. AYERS [Syllabus] Mental anguish damages resulting from the fear of developing cancer may be recovered under the Federal Employers' Liability Act by a railroad worker suffering from the actionable injury asbestosis caused by work-related exposure to asbestos; the FELA's express terms, reinforced by consistent judicial applications of the Act, allow such a worker to recover his entire damages from a railroad whose negligence jointly caused his injury, thus placing on the railroad the burden of seeking contribution from other potential tortfeasors.
	KOON V. UNITED STATES, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) [Syllabus]
	BLACK & DECKER DISABILITY PLAN V. NORD [Syllabus] Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that an ERISA disability plan administrator's determination of disability is subject to the treating physician rule and, therefore, the plan administrator is required to accept a treating physician's opinion of disability as controlling unless the plan administrator rebuts that opinion in writing based upon substantial evidence on the record.
	WATSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	KOWALSKI V. TESMER [Syllabus]
	RAGSDALE V. WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC. [Syllabus] A Labor Department regulation requiring an employer to grant an additional 12 weeks of leave to an employee who has not been informed that a previous absence would be counted as part of the 12 weeks of leave guaranteed by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 is contrary to the Act and beyond the Labor Secretary's authority.
	EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORP. V. MINE WORKERS [Syllabus] 1. Whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, there is a well defined and dominant public policy that prohibits enforcement of arbitration awards requiring reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of employees who test positive for illegal drugs, or whether, as the Second, Ninth, Tenth, and now Fourth Circuits have held, no such policy exists and courts must therefore uphold reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of those who test positive for illegal drugs. 2. Whether, as the Fourth, Ninth, and District of Columbia have held, an arbitration award should be vacated on public policy grounds only when the award itself violates positive law or requires unlawful conduct by the employer, or whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, such an award need not violate positive law to violate public policy---a question on which the Court granted certiorari, but did not reach, in United Paperwork's International Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987)."
	UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. WARD [Syllabus]
	GENERAL DYNAMICS LAND SYSTEMS, INC. V. CLINE [Syllabus] Whether the Court of appeals erred in holding, contrary to decisions of the First and Seventh Circuits, that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621-634, prohibits reverse discrimination, I.e., employer action practices, or policies that treat older workers more favorably than younger workers who are at least 40 years old.
	ASTORIA FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION V. SOLIMINO, 501 U.S. 104 (1991) [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	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.
	BAILEY V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 137 (1996). [Syllabus]
	CUTTER V. WILKINSON [Syllabus]
	MASTERS, MATES, & PILOTS V. BROWN, 498 U.S. 466 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ESTATE OF COWART V. NICKLOS DRILLING, 505 U.S. 469 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. FIOR D’ITALIA, INC. [Syllabus] In assessing a restaurant for Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes based upon tips that its employees may have received but did not report, the Internal Revenue Service is authorized to use an aggregate estimate of all tips that the restaurant's customers paid its employees.
	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.
	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."
	THUNDER BASIN COAL V. REICH, 510 U.S. 200 (1994). [Syllabus]
	STENBERG V. CARHART [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Eighth Circuit's adoption of a broad unconstitutional reading of Nebraska's ban on partial -birth abortion, which directly conflicts with the narrower constitutional construction of similar statutes by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and that of the State officials charged with enforcement of the statute, violates fundamental rules of statutory construction and basic principles of federalism in contradiction of the clear direction of this Court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services? 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit misapplied this Court's instructions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by finding that a law banning cruel and unusual methods of killing a partially-born child, is an ""undue burden"" on the right to abortion?"
	LACHANCE V. ERICKSON, 522 U.S. 262 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GREGORY V. ASHCROFT, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) [Syllabus]
	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.
	BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS, WABAUNSEE COUNTY, KAN. V. UMBEHR, 518 U.S.668 (1996) [Syllabus]
	BECK V. PRUPIS [Syllabus] Whether an employee who is terminated for both blowing the whistle on and refusing to participate in a pattern of predicated acts of racketeering forbidden by the Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act (""RICO""), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., may assert a civil RICO conspiracy claim, where he has been injured by an overt act in furtherance of the RICO conspiracy, which overt act is not, itself, a predicate act of racketeering (a question as to which the circuit courts of appeal are in direct conflict).
	PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. V. THE LTV CORP., 496 U.S. 633 (1990) [Syllabus]
	MCKENNON V. NASHVILLE BANNER PUBLISHING CO., 513 U.S. 352 (1995). [Syllabus]
	HAZEN PAPER V. BIGGINS, 507 U.S. 604 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, 513 U.S. 454 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES, INC. [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK AND WESTERN R. CO. V. TRAIN DISPATCHERS ASSOCIATION, 499 U.S. 117 (1991) [Syllabus]
	DAVENPORT V. WASHINGTON ED. ASSN. [Syllabus]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	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.
	GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS, INC. V. DARUEENGINEERING & MFG. [Syllabus]
	OUBRE V. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC., 522 U.S. 422 (1998) [Syllabus]
	IBP, INC. V. ALVAREZ [Syllabus]
	CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CLEVELAND V. POLICY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CORP. [Syllabus]
	BELL ATLANTIC CORP. V. TWOMBLY [Syllabus]
	TEXTRON LYCOMING RECIPROCATING ENGINE DIV., AVCO CORP. V. AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, 523 U.S. 653 (1998) [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."
	VERNONIA SCH. DIST. 47J V. ACTON, 515 U.S. 646 (1995). [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:
	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.
	SUMMIT HEALTH, LTD. V. PINHAS, 500 U.S. 322 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SHANNON V. UNITED STATES, 512 U.S. 573 (1994). [Syllabus]
	SAUDI ARABIA V. NELSON, 507 U.S. 349 (1993). [Syllabus]
	LANDGRAF V. USI FILM PRODS., 511 U.S. 244 (1994). [Syllabus]
	REGIONS HOSPITAL V. SHALALA, 522 U.S. 448 (1998) [Syllabus]
	O'HARE TRUCK SERVICE, INC. V. CITY OF NORTHLAKE 518 U.S. 712 (1996) [Syllabus]
	BARNHART V. PEABODY COAL CO. [Syllabus] Although the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 provides that the Commissioner of Social Security "shall, before October 1, 1993," assign each coal industry retiree eligible for benefits to an extant operator or related entity, initial assignments made after that date are valid despite their untimeliness.
	SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO. V. MENDELSOHN [Syllabus]
	RITA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BURKE, 504 U.S. 229 (1992). [Syllabus]
	EGELHOFF V. EGELHOFF [Syllabus] The Washington statute that provides that the designation of a spouse as the beneficiary of a nonprobate asset is revoked automatically upon divorce has a connection with ERISA plans and is therefore expressly pre-empted by ERISA.
	WOODFORD V. NGO [Syllabus]
	NORTH STAR STEEL CO. V. THOMAS, 515 U.S. 29 (1995). [Syllabus]
	COHEN V. COWLES MEDIA CO., 501 U.S. 663 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BREUER V. JIM’S 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.
	POSTAL SERVICE V. GREGORY [Syllabus] The Merit Systems Protection Board may review independently prior disciplinary actions pending in grievance proceedings when reviewing termination and other serious disciplinary actions.
	TOYOTA MOTOR MFG., KY., INC. V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus] The Sixth Circuit did not apply the proper standard in determining that respondent was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 because that court analyzed only a limited class of manual tasks and failed to ask whether respondent's impairments prevented or restricted her from performing tasks that are of central importance to most people's daily lives.
	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)?
	RUSH PRUDENTIAL HMO, INC. V. MORAN [Syllabus] The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 does not preempt §4-10 of the Illinois Health Maintenance Organization Act-which provides recipients of health coverage by an HMO with a right to independent medical review of certain benefit denials-as applied to health benefits provided by an HMO under contract with an employee welfare benefit plan.
	CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORP. V. GOTTSHALL, 114 S. CT. 2396, 129 L. ED. 2D 427 (1994) [Syllabus]
	HOUSEHOLD CREDIT SERVICES, INC. V. PFENNIG [Syllabus] Whether the Federal Reserve Board reasonably classified a fee imposed by a credit card lender because a consumer has exceeded the credit limit as one of the "other charges which may be imposed" under the account [15 U.S.C. 1637(a)(5)] rather than as a "finance charge" [15 U.S.C. 1605(a)], within the meaning of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq?
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Syllabus] 1. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981, the provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 that creates a private right of action for victims of gender-motivated violence, is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. 2. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981 is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
	MERTENS V. HEWITT ASSOCS., 508 U.S. 248 (1993). [Syllabus]
	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.
	ST. MARY'S HONOR CTR. V. HICKS, 509 U.S. 502 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. WILANDER, 498 U.S. 337 (1991) [Syllabus]
	GROVES V. RING SCREW WORKS, FERNDALE DIV., 498 U.S. 168 (1990) [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	CAMPS NEWFOUND/OWATONNA, INC. V. TOWN OF HARRISON, 520 U.S. 564 (1997) [Syllabus]
	BAKER BY THOMAS V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [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.
	RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997). [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMIN. V. FIRST NAT. BANK & TRUST CO., 522 U.S. 479 (1998) [Syllabus]
	TAYLOR V. FREELAND & KRONZ, 503 U.S. 638 (1992). [Syllabus]
	OFFICE OF SEN. MARK DAYTON V. HANSON [Syllabus]
	O'CONNOR V. CONSOLIDATED COIN CATERERS CORP., 517 U.S. 308 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL. V. EVANS ET AL., 517 U.S. 620 (1996). [Syllabus]
	JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS. V. HARRIS TRUST & SAV. BANK, 510 U.S. 86 (1993). [Syllabus]
	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?
	ROBERTSON V. SEATTLE AUDUBON SOC'Y, 503 U.S. 429 (1992). [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. FANKELL, 520 U.S. 911 (1997). [Syllabus]
	ALBERTSONS, INC. V. KIRKINGBURG [Syllabus]
	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?
	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.
	CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. V. ECHAZABAL [Syllabus] The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 permits an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation authorizing an employer to refuse to hire a disabled individual because his performance on the job would endanger his own health.
	YAMAHA MOTOR CORP., U. S. A., V. CALHOUN, 516 U.S. 199 (1996) [Syllabus]
	AETNA HEALTH INC. V. DAVILA [Syllabus] Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), as construed by the Supreme Court in Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987), and its progeny, completely preempts state-law claims by ERISA plan participants or beneficiaries who assert that a managed care company tortiously "failed to cover" (i.e., pay for) medical care?
	MADSEN V. WOMEN'S HEALTH CTR., 512 U.S. 753 (1994). [Syllabus]
	BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GEBSER V. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SIEGERT V. GILLEY, 500 U.S. 226 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MURPHY V. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. [Syllabus]
	REEVES V. SANDERSON PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC. [Syllabus] 1. Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, is direct evidence of discriminatory intent required to avoid judgment as a matter of law for the employer? 2. In determining whether to grant judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, should a District Judge weigh all of the evidence or consider only the evidence favoring the non-movant? 3. Whether the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 is the same as the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50?"
	FERGUSON V. CHARLESTON [Syllabus] A state hospital's performance of drug tests to obtain evidence of maternity patients' cocaine use for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patients have not consented to the procedure; the interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter such use cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant.
	ALBRIGHT V. OLIVER, 510 U.S. 266 (1994). [Syllabus]
	GEISSAL V. MOORE MEDICAL CORP., 524 U.S. 74 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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?
	BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MARTIN V. OSHRC, 499 U.S. 144 (1991) [Syllabus]
	JOHN R. SAND & GRAVEL CO. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CHANDLER V. MILLER, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) [Syllabus]
	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.
	IRWIN V. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) [Syllabus]
	MUSCARELLO V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 125 (1998) [Syllabus]
	PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. HASLIP, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF TREASURY V. FABE, 508 U.S. 491 (1993). [Syllabus]
	LEOCAL V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus]
	INTER MODAL RAIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY, 520 U.S. 510 (1997) [Syllabus]
	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.
	CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI BABALU AYE V. CITY OF HIALEAH, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). [Syllabus]
	GLOVER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that an additional 6 to 21 months in prison due to counsel's error relating to the sentencing guidelines fails to satisfy the "prejudice" prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a 2-level error in the offense level under the sentencing guidelines was per se insufficient to satisfy the ''prejudice" prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668(1984), even where this 2-level error resulted in the petitioner being sentenced to an additional 6 to 21 months in prison.
	BATH IRON WORKS V. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, 506 [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. DOE [Syllabus] Because Alaska's "Megan's Law" is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
	DOGGETT V. UNITED STATES, 505 U.S. 647 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ROCKWELL INT L CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	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.
	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.
	COMMISSIONER V. SCHLEIER, 515 U.S. 323 (1995). [Syllabus]