skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Search for:
All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

Did you mean OSHA or employee and safety?

Your query osha or (employee and safety) returned 12 results.

1000 SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION
[Opinion]
824 FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON
[Opinion]
797 ADAIR V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
788 INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.
[Opinion]
721 INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.
[Concurrence]
618 LOCHNER V. NEW YORK
[Opinion]
571 UNITED STATES V. PARADISE
[Opinion]
568 SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION
[Syllabus]
551 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Opinion]
530
[Syllabus]
516 ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
[Opinion]
510 LOCHNER V. NEW YORK
[Dissent]
495 HOUSTON EAST AND WEST TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
495 RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS
[Dissent]
486 SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION
[Dissent]
480 ADAIR V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
469 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)."
463 MARYLAND V. WIRTZ
[Opinion]
463 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP.
[Opinion]
451 MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE V. SITZ
[Dissent]
436 NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY CO. V. HILES, 516 U.S. 400 (1996).
[Syllabus]
436 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12
[Opinion]
436 WILSON V. NEW
[Dissent]
422 A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
392
[Syllabus]
392 SHERBERT V. VERNER
[Opinion]
392 INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.
[Syllabus]
392 JOHNSON V. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
[Opinion]
384 WILSON V. NEW
[Opinion]
384 BUCKLEY V. VALEO
[Opinion]
384 NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO.
[Opinion]
363 POWELL V. MCCORMACK
[Opinion]
360 WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH
[Opinion]
360 MORRISON V. OLSON
[Dissent]
334 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.
334 MILNER V. DEPARTMENT OF NAVY
[Syllabus]
334 ONCALE V. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC.
[Opinion]
334 RENO V. CONDON
[Opinion]
334 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY
[Opinion]
334 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Syllabus]
319 BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE R. CO.,, 516 U.S. 152 (1996)
[Syllabus]
319 SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES
[Dissent]
319 UNITED STATES V. DARBY
[Opinion]
319 NIXON V. FITZGERALD
[Dissent]
319 GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY
[Opinion]
302 ALBERTSONS, INC. V. KIRKINGBURG
[Syllabus]
302 WILKIE V. ROBBINS
[Syllabus]
302 DOE V. BOLTON
[Opinion]
302 VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC.
[Opinion]
302 INS V. CHADHA
[Dissent]
302 RUST V. SULLIVAN
[Dissent]
260 CHICAGO V. MORALES
[Dissent]
260 WATKINS V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
260 STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
[Opinion]
260 MORRISON V. OLSON
[Opinion]
260 CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N
[Dissent]
260 TRUAX V. RAICH
[Opinion]
260 BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
260 MCDANIEL V. PATY
[Concurrence]
260 UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ
[Dissent]
260 ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. V. PENA
[Opinion]
260 GOSS V. LOPEZ
[Dissent]
260 JOHNSON V. ROBISON
[Opinion]
260 ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Dissent]
260 HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG
[Dissent]
260 NEAR V. MINNESOTA
[Opinion]
260 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY
[Dissent]
260 UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ
[Concurrence]
260 NEAR V. MINNESOTA
[Dissent]
202 VARITY CORP. V. HOWE ET AL., 516 U.S. 489 (1996).
[Syllabus]
202 DE BUONO . V. NYSA-ILA MEDICAL AND CLINICAL SERVICE FUND, 520 U.S. 806 (1997)
[Syllabus]
202 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Opinion]
202 BLUM V. YARETSKY
[Dissent]
202 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
[Opinion]
202 ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT
[Dissent]
202 GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY
[Dissent]
202 WILSON V. LAYNE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
202 AGUILAR V. FELTON
[Dissent]
202 HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[Dissent]
202 NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES
[Concurrence]
202 DENNIS V. UNITED STATES
[Concurrence]
202 UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION V. LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD CO.
[Opinion]
202 WILSON V. LAYNE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
202 UNITED STATES V. PARADISE
[Syllabus]
202 ROMER V. EVANS
[Dissent]
202 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
202 WHALEN V. ROE
[Opinion]
202 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
202 JACKSON V. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.
[Opinion]
202 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12
[Dissent]
1000
[Syllabus]
882 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 ยง4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; and the barge in question was a "workplace" covered by the Act.
868 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.
837
[Syllabus]
551 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)."
513 NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY CO. V. HILES, 516 U.S. 400 (1996).
[Syllabus]
393 MILNER V. DEPARTMENT OF NAVY
[Syllabus]
375 BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE R. CO.,, 516 U.S. 152 (1996)
[Syllabus]
355 WILKIE V. ROBBINS
[Syllabus]
355 ALBERTSONS, INC. V. KIRKINGBURG
[Syllabus]
237 VARITY CORP. V. HOWE ET AL., 516 U.S. 489 (1996).
[Syllabus]
237 DE BUONO . V. NYSA-ILA MEDICAL AND CLINICAL SERVICE FUND, 520 U.S. 806 (1997)
[Syllabus]