Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query Jones Act returned 28 results.

	JONES V. ALFRED H. MAYER CO. [Opinion]
	NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP. [Opinion]
	JONES V. ALFRED H. MAYER CO. [Dissent]
	BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP. [Syllabus]
	JONES V. R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS CO. [Syllabus] Does the four-year catch-all limitations period of 28 U.S.C. §1658 apply to new causes of action created by public law 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which were codified at 42 U.S.C. §1981(a) and (b)?
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. JONES [Opinion]
	JONES V. ALFRED H. MAYER CO. [Concurrence]
	JONES V. ALFRED H. MAYER CO. [Syllabus]
	BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	CLINTON V. JONES [Concurrence]
	CLINTON V. JONES [Opinion]
	JONES V. BOCK [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."
	CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. JONES [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. JONES [Dissent]
	CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. JONES [Concurrence]
	MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. WILANDER, 498 U.S. 337 (1991) [Syllabus]
	JONES V. R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS CO. [Syllabus] Does the four-year catch-all limitations period of 28 U.S.C. §1658 apply to new causes of action created by public law 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which were codified at 42 U.S.C. §1981(a) and (b)?
	CHANDRIS, INC. V. LATSIS, 515 U.S. 347 (1995). [Syllabus]
	MILES V. APEX MARINE CORP.., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) [Syllabus]
	HARBOR TUG & BARGE CO. V. PAPAI ET UX., 520 U.S. 548 (1997). [Syllabus]
	STEWART V. DUTRA CONSTR. CO. [Syllabus]
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. HENDRICKS, 117 S.CT. 2072, 138 L.ED.2D 501 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BOOKER [Syllabus]
	RANDALL V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	AMERICAN DREDGING V. MILLER, 510 U.S. 443 (1994). [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."
	JONES V. BOCK [Syllabus]
	CLARK V. ARIZONA [Syllabus]
	JAMES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CHENEY V. UNITED STATES DIST. COURT FOR D. C. [Syllabus] (1) Whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 1, §§ 1 et seq., can be construed, consistent with the Constitution, principles of separation of powers, and this Court's decisions governing judicial review of Executive Branch actions, to authorize broad discovery of the process by which the Vice President and other senior advisors gathered information to advise the President on important national policy matters, based solely on an unsupported allegation in a complaint that the advisory group was not constituted as the President expressly directed and the advisory group itself reported? (2) Whether the court of appeals had mandamus or appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's unprecedented discovery orders in this litigation?
	DOOLEY V. KOREAN AIR LINES CO., 524 U.S. 116 (1998) [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.
	GENERAL DYNAMICS LAND SYSTEMS, INC. V. CLINE [Syllabus] Whether the Court of appeals erred in holding, contrary to decisions of the First and Seventh Circuits, that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621-634, prohibits reverse discrimination, I.e., employer action practices, or policies that treat older workers more favorably than younger workers who are at least 40 years old.
	SHEPARD V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	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)."
	HIBBS V. WINN [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. CRANE [Syllabus] Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U. S. 346, set forth no requirement that a dangerous sexual offender have a total or complete lack of control to civilly commit him, but the Constitution does not permit such commitment without any lack-of-control determination.
	CLINGMAN V. BEAVER [Syllabus]
	GRUPO MEXICANO DE DESARROLLO, S. A. V. ALLIANCE BOND FUND, INC. [Syllabus]
	ROBERTSON V. SEATTLE AUDUBON SOC'Y, 503 U.S. 429 (1992). [Syllabus]
	FMC CORP. V. HOLLIDAY, 498 U.S. 52 (1990) [Syllabus]