Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query Federal Tort Claim Act returned 34 results.

	ALI V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS [Syllabus]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	OSBORN V. HALEY [Syllabus]
	WILKIE V. ROBBINS [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?
	F.D.I.C. V. MEYER, 510 U.S. 471 (1994). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 499 U.S. 160 (1991) [Syllabus]
	WILL V. HALLOCK [Syllabus]
	JEROME B. GRUBART, INC. V. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO., 513 U.S. 527 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. SHANKLIN [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals properly applied this Court's decision in CSX Transportation, Inc. V. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993), when it held, in acknowledged conflict with decisions of three other circuits, that claims of negligence based on inadeguate warning devices at a railway grade crossing are not preempted even through the warning devices at the crossing were installed with federal funds under a project approved by the federal government."
	JEFFERSON V. CITY OF TARRANT, ALA., 522 U.S. 75 (1997) [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?
	UNITED STATES V. GAUBERT, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ALI V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS [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?
	CSX TRANSP. V. EASTERWOOD, 507 U.S. 658 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. UNITED STATES, 507 U.S. 197 (1993). [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER V. SCHLEIER, 515 U.S. 323 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BUCKMAN CO. V. PLAINTIFFS’ LEGAL COMM. [Syllabus] Whether federal law preempts state-law tort claims alleging fraud on the Food and Drug Administration during the regulatory process for marketing clearance applicable to certain devices.
	BATES V. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BURKE, 504 U.S. 229 (1992). [Syllabus]
	HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. V. ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO. [Syllabus]
	HADDLE V. GARRISON [Syllabus]
	HAWAIIAN AIRLINES V. NORRIS, 512 U.S. 246 (1994). [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."
	YAMAHA MOTOR CORP., U. S. A., V. CALHOUN, 516 U.S. 199 (1996) [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. JAMES N. KIRBY,PTY LTD. [Syllabus]
	METRO NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD CO. V. BUCKLEY, 521 U.S. 424 (1997) [Syllabus]
	MCNEIL V. UNITED STATES, 508 U.S. 106 (1993). [Syllabus]
	INGERSOLL-RAND CO. V. MCCLENDON, 498 U.S. 133 (1990) [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SHIPBUILDING & DRYDOCK CORP.V. GARRIS [Syllabus] The general maritime cause of action recognized in Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 374, 409__for dealth caused by violation of maritime duties__is available for the negligent breach of a maritime dutry of care.
	BAKER BY THOMAS V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) [Syllabus]