Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query retirement returned 61 results.

	KENTUCKY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS V. EEOC [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ [Concurrence]
	KENTUCKY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS V. EEOC [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[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.
	LOCKHEED CORP. ET AL. V. SPINK, 517 U.S. 882 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	BOGGS V. BOGGS, 520 U.S. 833 (1997). [Syllabus]
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. V. JACOBSON [Syllabus]
	AT&T CORP. V. HULTEEN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BRENTWOOD ACADEMY V. TENNESSEE SECONDARYSCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. [Syllabus] Whether the regulatory conduct of a nominally private secondary school athletic association, which ""establishes and enforces all of the rules by which high school teams and players, at both public and private schools, compete throughout the state of Tennessee,"" Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School athletic Ass'n, 190 F.3rd 705 (6th Cir. 1999) (Merritt, J., dissenting from the denial of petition for rehearing en banc), and whose ""membership consist(s) entirely of institutions located within the same State, many of them public institutions created by the same sovereign, "" NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 193 n. 13 (1988), constitutes state action under the Fourteenth Amendment and under 42 U.S.C. 1983."
	[Syllabus]
	CONKRIGHT V. FROMMERT [Syllabus]
	CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. V. SCHOONEJONGEN, 514 U.S. 73 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ROUSEY V. JACOWAY [Syllabus]
	[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."
	KENNEDY V. PLAN ADMINISTRATOR FOR DUPONT SAV. AND INVESTMENT PLAN [Syllabus]
	METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. GLENN [Syllabus]
	DE BUONO . V. NYSA-ILA MEDICAL AND CLINICAL SERVICE FUND, 520 U.S. 806 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[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?
	UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. WARD [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	VARITY CORP. V. HOWE ET AL., 516 U.S. 489 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LEDBETTER V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. [Syllabus]
	GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS. CO. V. KNUDSON [Syllabus] Because petitioners are seeking legal relief-the imposition of personal liability on respondents for a contractual obligation to pay money-this action is not authorized by §502(a)(3) of ERISA, which prescribes a suit for "appropriate equitable relief."
	KENTUCKY ASSN. OF HEALTH PLANS, INC. V. MILLER [Syllabus] Kentucky's "Any Willing Provider" statutes are "law[s] . . . which regulat[e] insurance" under 29 U. S. C. §1144(b)(2)(A) and are therefore saved from pre-emption by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
	BAKER BY THOMAS V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LV. DEWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT V. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, 519 U.S. 316 (1997) [Syllabus]
	GROSS V. FBL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	PEACOCK V. THOMAS, 516 U.S. 349 (1996). [Syllabus]
	JEFFERSON COUNTY V. ACKER [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:
	PEGRAM V. HERDRICH [Syllabus] Whether a health maintenance organization (""HMO"") and its physicians breach a fiduciary duty under section 404(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1404(a)(1), by implementing a managed care program in which the physicians receive financial incentives to provide medical care to the HMO's enrollees in a cost-effective manner.
	CIGNA CORP. V. AMARA [Syllabus]
	HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. V. ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO. [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.
	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?
	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.
	GEISSAL V. MOORE MEDICAL CORP., 524 U.S. 74 (1998) [Syllabus]
	INTER MODAL RAIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY, 520 U.S. 510 (1997) [Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD PLANS V. TRAVELERS, 514 U.S. 645 (1995) [Syllabus]
	HARDT V. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BECK V. PACE INTL UNION [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. REOGANIZED CF&I FABRICATORS OF UTAH, INC., ET AL., 518 U.S. 213 (1996) [Syllabus]
	PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. V. THE LTV CORP., 496 U.S. 633 (1990) [Syllabus]