Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query office returned 148 results.

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

	AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC., 524 U.S. 214 (1998) [Syllabus]
	DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DEP'T OF LABOR V. NEWPORT [Syllabus]
	HAWAII V. OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS [Syllabus]
	OFFICE OF SEN. MARK DAYTON V. HANSON [Syllabus]
	INGALLS SHIPBUILDING, INC. V. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, 519 U.S. 248 (1997) [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA OFFICE FOR PROTECTION AND ADVOCACYV. STEWART [Syllabus]
	DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE FOR THIRD JUDICIALDIST. V. OSBORNE [Syllabus]
	ROWAN V. UNITED STATES POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT [Opinion]
	ROWAN V. UNITED STATES POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT [Concurrence]
	ROWAN V. UNITED STATES POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT [Syllabus]
	INGALLS SHIPBUILDING, INC. V. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, 519 U.S. 248 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DEP'T OF LABOR V. NEWPORT [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC., 524 U.S. 214 (1998) [Syllabus]
	OFFICE OF SEN. MARK DAYTON V. HANSON [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA OFFICE FOR PROTECTION AND ADVOCACYV. STEWART [Syllabus]
	HAWAII V. OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS [Syllabus]
	DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE FOR THIRD JUDICIALDIST. V. OSBORNE [Syllabus]
	LACHANCE V. ERICKSON, 522 U.S. 262 (1998) [Syllabus]
	NO. 96-1671 RAINES V. BYRD, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CLARK V. MARTINEZ [Syllabus]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. V. SCHMIDT [Syllabus]
	CHANDLER V. MILLER, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. #1 V. REDDING [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TOLIFE, INC. [Syllabus]
	CONNICK V. THOMPSON [Syllabus]
	JEFFERSON COUNTY V. ACKER [Syllabus]
	OSBORN V. HALEY [Syllabus]
	NIXON V. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals erred in declaring that Missouri's campaign contribution limits for statewide office, which exceed the limits expressly approved by this Court for national elections in Buckeley V. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), violates the First Amendment.
	[Syllabus]
	BOGAN V. SCOTT-HARRIS, 523 U.S. 44 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FREE ENTERPRISE FUND V. PUBLIC COMPANYACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BD. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. KOKINDA, 497 U.S. 720 (1990) [Syllabus]
	FOSTER V. LOVE, 522 U.S. 67 (1997) [Syllabus]
	NASA V. FLRA [Syllabus]
	MORSE V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA, 517 U.S. 186 (1996). [Syllabus]
	HUI V. CASTANEDA [Syllabus]
	NGUYEN V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MILLER-EL V. COCKRELL [Syllabus] The Fifth Circuit erred when it declined to issue a certificate of appealability to review the District Court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner.
	WATTERS V. WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. [Syllabus]
	RANDALL V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CRAWFORD V. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD. [Syllabus]
	[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."
	CLINTON V. JONES, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HERTZ CORP. V. FRIEND [Syllabus]
	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."
	WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOC. OF N. Y., INC. V.VILLAGE OF STRATTON [Syllabus] A village ordinance making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.
	CORLEY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	DAVIS V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN [Syllabus]
	TRW INC. V. ANDREWS [Syllabus] The Fair Credit Reporting Act's statute of limitations-which requires an action to be brought "within two years from the date on which the liability arises, except that where a defendant has . . . willfully misrepresented any information required . . . to be disclosed to [the plaintiff] and the information . . . is material to [a claim under the Act], the action may be brought at any time within two years after [the plaintiff's] discovery . . . of the misrepresentation"-is not governed by a general rule that the limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know that she was injured.
	GONZAGA UNIV. V. DOE [Syllabus] Respondent's action is foreclosed because the relevant provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 create no personal rights to enforce under 42 U. S. C. §1983.
	REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINN. V. WHITE [Syllabus] The Minnesota Supreme Court's canon of judicial conduct prohibiting candidates for judicial election from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues violates the First Amendment.
	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.
	HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CUOMO V. CLEARING HOUSE ASSN., L. L. C. [Syllabus]
	MILLER-EL V. DRETKE [Syllabus]
	VAN V. GOLDSTEIN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N V. AKINS, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUBS FREEDOMCLUB PAC V.BENNETT [Syllabus]
	BATES V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 23 (1997) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. UNITED FOODS, INC. [Syllabus] The Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act's requirement that fresh mushroom handlers pay assessments used primarily to fund advertising promoting mushroom sales violates the First Amendment.
	[Syllabus]
	VERMONT V. BRILLON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	TIMMONS V. TWIN CITIES AREA NEW PARTY, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) [Syllabus]
	O'HARE TRUCK SERVICE, INC. V. CITY OF NORTHLAKE 518 U.S. 712 (1996) [Syllabus]
	METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE CO. V. RAMBO, 117 S.CT. 1953, 138 L.ED.2D 327 (1997). [Syllabus]
	U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. V. THORNTON, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). [Syllabus]
	GRATZ V. BOLLINGER [Syllabus] 1. Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981?
	HILLSIDE DAIRY INC. V. LYONS [Syllabus] 1. Whether section 144 of the 1996 Farm Bill creates an unmistakably clear blanket exemption to the dormant Commerce Clause For California's interstate regulation of the dairy industry, which would be otherwise limited by this Court's holding in baldwin v. G.A. F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511 (1935), and its progeny? 2. Whether it is proper for courts to resort to legislative history or a paraphrase of a statute in order to discern an unmistakably clear Congressional exemption to the negative Commerce Clause?
	CARTER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether bank larceny, 18 U.S.C. 2113(b) (Supp.IV 1998), is a lesser included offense of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113 (a)."
	COOK V. GRALIKE [Syllabus] 1. Do the people violate Article V of the Constitution when they participate in the evolution of their government by communicating their opinion to federal legislators or by communicating on the ballot to voters about the behavior of federal candidates? 2. Do the people violate the Qualifications Clauses and the First Amendment when they comment on the ballot regarding an elected representative's actions and voting record or when they comment on the ballot about a non-incumbent congressional candidate's silence concerning a prospective constitutional amendment? 3. Does the speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution prohibit the people from commenting on the ballot about a federal legislator's actions and voting record in regard to a prospective constitutional amendment?"
	FESTO CORP. V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYOKABUSHIKI CO. [Syllabus] Prosecution history estoppel may apply to any claim amendment made to satisfy the Patent Act's requirements, not just to amendments made to avoid the prior art, but estoppel need not bar suit against every equivalent to the amended claim element.
	WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE V. WASHINGTON STATEREPUBLICAN PARTY [Syllabus]
	HENDERSON V. SHINSEKI [Syllabus]
	SPENCER V. KEMNA, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BANK OF AMERICA NAT. TRUST AND SAV. ASSN. V.203 NORTH LASALLE STREET PARTNERSHIP [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BALSYS, 524 U.S. 666 (1998) [Syllabus]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	KSR INTL CO. V. TELEFLEX INC. [Syllabus]
	ARTUZ V. BENNETT [Syllabus] Is a state court post-conviction application ""properly filed"" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(2), which tolls the one-year statute of limitations for Habeas corpus petitions in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, if it is filed in a court that does not have the power to hear the merits of the application?"
	BRIDGE V. PHOENIX BOND & INDEMNITY CO. [Syllabus]
	SKINNER V. SWITZER [Syllabus]
	LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS V.PERRY [Syllabus]
	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. DOMINGUEZ BENITEZ [Syllabus] Whether, in order to show that a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 constitutes reversible plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty if the violation had not occurred?
	DICKINSON V. ZURKO [Syllabus]
	LOGAN V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	RALEIGH V. ILLINOIS DEPT. OF REVENUE [Syllabus] Should tax claims in bankruptcy be given the advantage of placing the burden of proof on an objecting trustee, in contrast to the rule applicable to the claims of other creditors?"
	SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP. V. UNITED STATESEX REL. KIRK [Syllabus]
	ABBOTT V. ABBOTT [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.
	559 U. S. ____ (2010) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SNYDER V. PHELPS [Syllabus]
	RICE V. CAYETANO [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution permit the adoption of an explicitracial classification that restricts the right to vote in statewide elections for state officials.
	DOE V. REED [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.
	METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE CO. V. RAMBO, 515 U.S. 291 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SWIDLER & BERLIN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 399 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MILNER V. DEPARTMENT OF NAVY [Syllabus]
	PERMANENT MISSION OF INDIA TO UNITED NATIONS V.CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMIN. V. FAVISH [Syllabus] The Freedom of Information Act's Exemption 7(C)
	NKEN V. HOLDER [Syllabus]
	BECKER V. MONTGOMERY [Syllabus] When a party files a timely notice of appeal in federal district court, the failure to sign the notice does not require the court of appeals to dismiss the appeal.
	POSTAL SERVICE V. FLAMINGO INDUSTRIES (USA) LTD. [Syllabus] The federal antitrust laws apply to a person, which is defined to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of * * * the United States. 15 U.S.C.7 (sherman Act), 12 (a) (Clayton Act). The question presented is whether the United States Postal Service is a person amenable to suit under the antitrust laws.
	GUTIERREZ DE MARTINEZ V. LAMAGNO, 515 U.S. 417 (1995). [Syllabus]
	14 PENN PLAZA LLC V. PYETT [Syllabus]
	WATSON V. PHILIP MORRIS COS. [Syllabus]
	J. MV. NICASTRO [Syllabus]
	CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN [Syllabus]
	GUTIERREZ V. ADA [Syllabus] 1. By rewriting the statutory words "" in any election"" to state"" in any general election in which the gubernational election is a part,"" 2. By rewriting the statutory words a "" majority of votes cast in any election"" to mean a ""majority of votes cast in any election"" to mean a ""majority of ballots cast in any general election,"" and 3. By counting as ""votes"" ballots that are invalid under Guam election statutes, thereby placing the Ninth Circuit in direct conflict with the Third Circuit's interpretation of the identical language of the Virgin Islands Organic Act (48 U.S.C. 1591) in Todman v. Boschulte, 684 F.2D (3d Cir. 1982)?
	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?
	BUCKHANNON BOARD & CARE HOME, INC. V. WESTVIRGINIA DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES [Syllabus] The "catalyst theory," which posits that a plaintiff is a prevailing party if it achieves the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct, is not a permissible basis for the award of attorney's fees under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
	TORY V. COCHRAN [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. V. HOLOWECKI [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GRAHAM COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATIONDIST. V.UNITED STATES EX REL. WILSON [Syllabus]
	MICROSOFT CORP. V. I4I LTD. PARTNERSHIP [Syllabus]
	ARLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST. BD. OF ED. V.MURPHY [Syllabus]
	BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH [Syllabus]
	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.
	ASTRA USA, INC. V.SANTA CLARA COUNTY [Syllabus]
	BILSKI V. KAPPOS [Syllabus]
	RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995). [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ASSN. OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERSOF WILDLIFE [Syllabus]
	UNITED HAULERS ASSN., INC. V. ONEIDA-HERKIMERSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY [Syllabus]
	GRANHOLM V. HEALD [Syllabus]
	INTER MODAL RAIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY, 520 U.S. 510 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. V. SCHOONEJONGEN, 514 U.S. 73 (1995). [Syllabus]
	RILEY V. KENNEDY [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SUN-DIAMOND GROWERS OF CAL. [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. JONES [Syllabus] Whether California's new blanket primary law-- which allows voters of any political affiliation to cross party lines at will and to participate in the selection of other parties nominees-- violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Whether the associational rights of political parties are afforded less protection under the First Amendment than the associational rights of other private associations."
	ONTARIO V. QUON [Syllabus]
	REPUBLIC OF IRAQ V. BEATY [Syllabus]
	WARNER JENKINSON CO., INC. V. HILTON DAVIS CHEMICAL CO., 520 U.S. 17 (1997). [Syllabus]
	J. E. M. AG SUPPLY, INC. V. PIONEER HI-BREDINTERNATIONAL, INC. [Syllabus] Utility patents may be issued for newly developed plant breeds under 35 U. S. C. §101; neither the Plant Variety Protection Act nor the Plant Patent Act of 1930 limits the scope of §101's coverage.
	FOX V. VICE [Syllabus]
	SORRELL V. IMS HEALTH INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ATHERTON V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 519 U.S. 213 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MEAD CORP. [Syllabus] A Customs ruling letter has no claim to deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, but, under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, it is eligible to claim respect according to its persuasiveness.
	HUDSON V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 93 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]