Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query tax returned 173 results.

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

	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. CHICKASAW NATION, 515 U.S. 450 (1995). [Syllabus]
	HUNT-WESSON, INC. V. FRANCHISE TAX BD. OF CAL. [Syllabus] 1. Whether a State may tax constitutionally exempt income under the guise of denying a deduction for expenses in an amount equal to such income when there is no evidence that the expenses relate to the production of the exempt income? 2. Whether a state tax discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause by disallowing an otherwise deductible expense, thereby increasing California taxable income, solely because the corporation is not domiciled in the State or does not have subsidiaries that engage in taxable in-state activity?
	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?
	LUNDING V. NEW YORK TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL, 522 U.S. 287 (1998) [Syllabus]
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. JEFFERSON LINES, 514 U.S. 175 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concurrence]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Opinion]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Opinion]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Concurrence]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK []
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Syllabus]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concurrence]
	WAGNON V. PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION [Syllabus]
	JEFFERSON COUNTY V. ACKER [Syllabus]
	BALLARD V. COMMISSIONER [Syllabus]
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. CHICKASAW NATION, 515 U.S. 450 (1995). [Syllabus]
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. JEFFERSON LINES, 514 U.S. 175 (1995). [Syllabus]
	LUNDING V. NEW YORK TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL, 522 U.S. 287 (1998) [Syllabus]
	POLAR TANKERS, INC. V. CITY OF VALDEZ [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FULTON CORP. V. FAULKNER, SECRETARY OF REVENUE OF N. C., 516 U.S. 325 (1996). [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.
	ARIZONA CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TUITION ORGANIZATION V.WINN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LEVIN V. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC. [Syllabus]
	HUNT-WESSON, INC. V. FRANCHISE TAX BD. OF CAL. [Syllabus] 1. Whether a State may tax constitutionally exempt income under the guise of denying a deduction for expenses in an amount equal to such income when there is no evidence that the expenses relate to the production of the exempt income? 2. Whether a state tax discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause by disallowing an otherwise deductible expense, thereby increasing California taxable income, solely because the corporation is not domiciled in the State or does not have subsidiaries that engage in taxable in-state activity?
	MONTANA V. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, 523 U.S. 696 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BARAL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether a remittance of estimated taxes or of taxes withheld from wages is a payment of tax that is subject to the limitation on tax refunds set forth in Section 6511(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 6511(b).
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. ALABAMA [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HIBBS V. WINN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[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?
	BOULWARE V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ESTATE OF ROMANII, 523 U.S. 517 (1998) [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?
	CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. V. ALABAMA DEPT. OFREVENUE [Syllabus]
	PASQUANTINO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. REOGANIZED CF&I FABRICATORS OF UTAH, INC., ET AL., 518 U.S. 213 (1996) [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. LUNDY, 516 U.S. 235 (1996). [Syllabus]
	MEADWESTVACO CORP. V. ILLINOIS DEPT. OFREVENUE [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA DEPT. OF REVENUE V. BLAZE CONSTR. CO. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	C.I.R. V. ESTATE OF HUBERT, 520 U.S. 93 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP., 517 U.S. 843 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ALLIED-SIGNAL, INC. V. DIRECTOR, DIV. OF TAXATION, 504 U.S. 768 (1992). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, 514 U.S. 527 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	DRYE V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the interest of an heir in an estate constitutes 'property ' or a 'right to property' to which the federal tax lien attaches under 26 U.S.C 6321 even though the heir thereafter purports retroactively to disclaim the interest under state law.
	UNITED STATES V. CRAFT [Syllabus] Michigan law gives a tenant by the entirety individual rights in the estate sufficient to constitute "property" or "rights to property" to which a federal tax lien may attach under 26 U. S. C. §6321.
	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?"
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	ATKINSON TRADING CO. V. SHIRLEY [Syllabus] The Navajo Nation's imposition of a hotel occupancy tax upon nonmembers on non-Indian fee land within its reservation is invalid.
	DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF KY. V. DAVIS [Syllabus]
	GITLITZ  V.  COMMISSIONER [Syllabus] Whether, in conflict with the holdings of the Third Circuit in United States v. Farley, No 99-3209, F. 3d (3d Cir. 2000) (App. 92) and the Fifth Circuit in CSI Hydrostatic Testers, Inc. and Subs. v. Commissioner, 62 F.3d 136 (5th Cir. 1995), aff'g and adopting the opinion of the Tax Court, 103 T.C. 398 (1994), the Tenth Circuit incorrectly held that tax attributes subject to reduction under 26 U.S.C. 108(b), including the suspended losses of an S corporation shareholder, must be reduced in the year that discharge of indebtedness income, excluded under 26 U.S.C. 108(a), is realized, despite the statutory requirement that all tax attributes, including suspended losses, be adjusted in the succeeding taxable year, and only after the determination of tax for the taxable year, of the discharge."
	UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES SHOE CORP., 523 U.S. 360 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FITZGERALD V. RACING ASSN. OF CENTRAL IOWA [Syllabus] Can the State of Iowa tax the revenue from slot machines at parimutuel racetracks and the revenue from all casino games on riverboats, including slot machines, at different rates without violating the Equal Protection Clause?
	[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.
	[Syllabus]
	PORTLAND GOLF CLUB V. COMMISSIONER, 497 U.S. 154 (1990) [Syllabus]
	HEMI GROUP, LLC V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	YOUNG V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] The Bankruptcy Code's lookback period, which provides that a discharge does not extinguish certain tax liabilities for which a return was due within three years before the filing of the individual debtor's petition, 11 U. S. C. §507(a)(8)(A)(i), is tolled during the pendency of a prior bankruptcy petition.
	LIMTIACO V. CAMACHO [Syllabus]
	HINCK V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	NEDER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING CO. [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CHICKASAW NATION V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] The Indian Regulatory Gaming Act provision codified at 25 U. S. C. §2719(d)(i) does not exempt tribes from paying the gambling-related taxes imposed by chapter 35 of the Internal Revenue Code.
	CSX TRANSP., INC. V. GEORGIA STATE BD. OFEQUALIZATION [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	DE BUONO . V. NYSA-ILA MEDICAL AND CLINICAL SERVICE FUND, 520 U.S. 806 (1997) [Syllabus]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS, INC. V. DARUEENGINEERING & MFG. [Syllabus]
	CASS COUNTY V. LEECH LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, 524 U.S. 103 (1998) [Syllabus]
	PERMANENT MISSION OF INDIA TO UNITED NATIONS V.CITY OF NEW YORK [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?
	DIRECTOR OF REVENUE OF MO. V. COBANK ACB [Syllabus] Does 12 U.S.C. Section 2134 authorize states to tax the income of the National Bank for Cooperatives, a federally chartered instrumentality of the United States?""."
	ARKANSAS V. FARM CREDIT SERVICES OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS, 520 U.S. 821 (1997) [Syllabus]
	GRANHOLM V. HEALD [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	EC TERM OF YEARS TRUST V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FLORIDA DEPT. OF REVENUE V. PICCADILLYCAFETERIAS, INC. [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., INC. V. MICHIGAN PUB. SERV. COMM’N [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ALI V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS [Syllabus]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	HUMANA INC. V. FORSYTH [Syllabus]
	ATLANTIC MUT. INS. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 523 U.S. 382 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. NOLAND, 517 U.S. 535 (1996) [Syllabus]
	NIJHAWAN V. HOLDER [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	U.S. V. BROCKAMP, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MCGILL, DECEASED, 519 U.S. 347 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ROUSEY V. JACOWAY [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	AT&T MOBILITY LLC V. CONCEPCION [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KNIGHT V. COMMISSIONER [Syllabus]
	PHILLIPS V. WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION, 524 U.S. 156 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	RICHARDS ET AL. V. JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA, ET AL., 517 U.S. 793 (1996). [Syllabus]
	MCINTYRE V. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). [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:
	MORSE V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA, 517 U.S. 186 (1996). [Syllabus]
	MAYO FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL ED. AND RESEARCH V.UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CITY OF SHERRILL V. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF N. Y. [Syllabus]
	UNITED DOMINION INDUSTRIES, INC. V.UNITED STATESSYLLABUS [Syllabus] The "product liability loss" (PLL) of an affiliated group of corporations electing to file a consolidated federal income tax return must be figured on a consolidated, single-entity basis, not by aggregating PLLs separately determined company by company.
	[Syllabus]
	BOEING CO. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Title 26 CFR §1.861-8(e)(3) (1979)-which governs allocation of research and development expenses in computing taxable income from export sales entitled to special tax treatment under Internal Revenue Code provisions pertaining to "domestic international sales corporations" and "foreign sales corporations"-is a proper exercise of the Secretary of the Treasury's rulemaking authority.
	ALASKA V. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, 522 U.S. 520 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BRIDGE V. PHOENIX BOND & INDEMNITY CO. [Syllabus]
	LOCKE V. DAVEY [Syllabus] The Washington Constitution provides that no public money shall be appropriated or applied to religious instruction. Following this constitutional command, Washington does not grant college scholarships to otherwise eligible students who are pursuing a degree in theology. Does the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment require the state to fund religious instruction, if it provides college scholarships for secular instruction?
	TAYLOR V. STURGELL [Syllabus]
	O'GILVIE MINORS V. UNITED STATES, 519 U.S. 79 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NATIONSBANK OF N.C. V. VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE INS. CO., 513 U.S. 251 (1995). [Syllabus]
	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?
	[Syllabus]
	NIXON V. MISSOURI MUNICIPAL LEAGUE [Syllabus] Whether 47 U.S.C. 253(a), which provides that "[n]o State ... regulation ... may prohibit ... the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service," preempts a state law prohibiting political subdivisions of the state from offering telecommunications service to the public?
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. COMSTOCK [Syllabus]
	AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [Syllabus]
	HOLLAND V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	CROSBY V. NATIONAL FOREIGN TRADE COUNCIL [Syllabus] 1. Whether economic sanctions against Burma enacted by Congress in 1996-- three months after enactment of the Massachusetts Burma Law-- implicitly permit, or preempt, state and local selective purchasing laws regarding Burma. 2. Whether selective purchasing law such as the Massachusetts Burma Law represent ""market participation,"" not regulation, and are therefore exempt from claims based on the Foreign Commerce Clause and the foreign affairs power of the federal government. 3. Whether selective purchasing laws such as the Massachusetts Burma Law unconstitutionally interfere with the power of the federal government to conduct foreign affairs. 4. Whether selective purchasing laws such as the Massachusetts Burma Law discriminate against foreign commerce in violation of the Foreign Commerce Clause."
	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.
	WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. V. SCHMIDT [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.
	UNITED STATES V. HUBBELL [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination protects information previously recorded in voluntarily created documents that a defendant delivers to the government pursuant to an immunized act of production. 2. Whether a defendant's act producing ordinary business records constitutes a compelled testimonial communication solely because the government cannot identify the documents with reasonable particularity before they are produced."
	CLEVELAND V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Can alleged false statements or omissions in applications for state licenses be the basis for federal mail or wire fraud charges, on the theory that a license that has not yet been issued constitutes ""property"" of the State, of which the State is deprived when it issues the license? 2. Is materiality an element of the offense of mail fraud?"
	BRYAN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S 184 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	562 U. S. ____ (2011) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP V. CARLISLE [Syllabus]
	WILKIE V. ROBBINS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. RECUENCO [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. LEGAL FOUNDATION OF WASH. [Syllabus] Interest earned on client funds deposited in IOLTA accounts that is transferred to a different owner for a legitimate public use may constitute a per se taking requiring "just compensation" to the client under the Fifth Amendment; but because such compensation is measured by the owner's pecuniary interest, which is zero whenever Washington's IOLTA law is obeyed, there is no violation of the Just Compensation Clause here.
	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.
	DAVENPORT V. WASHINGTON ED. ASSN. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. URSERY, 518 U.S. 267 (1996). [Syllabus]
	LOS ANGELES V. ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC. [Syllabus] The Ninth Circuit's judgment striking down a Los Angeles ordinance banning multiple-use adult entertainment establishments under Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41, is reversed, and the case is remanded.
	KIOWA TRIBE OF OK V. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KELO V. NEW LONDON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	C & L ENTERPRISES, INC. V. CITIZEN BANDPOTAWATOMI TRIBE OF OKLA.SYLLABUS [Syllabus] Under the agreement respondent Tribe proposed and signed, the Tribe clearly consented to arbitration and to the enforcement of arbitral awards in Oklahoma state court; the Tribe thereby waived its sovereign immunity from petitioner contractor's state-court suit to enforce its arbitration award.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC. [Syllabus]
	ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NO. 96-1671 RAINES V. BYRD, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) [Syllabus]
	RIVET V. REGIONS BANK OF LA., 522 U.S. 470 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MILNER V. DEPARTMENT OF NAVY [Syllabus]