Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query bank returned 109 results.

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

	BANK ONE CHICAGO, N. A. V. MIDWEST BANK & TRUST CO., 516 U.S. 264 (1996). [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL BANK OF DENVER V. FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF DENVER, 114 S. CT. 1439, (1994) [Syllabus]
	MARRAMA V. CITIZENS BANK OF MASS. [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMIN. V. FIRST NAT. BANK & TRUST CO., 522 U.S. 479 (1998) [Syllabus]
	JPMORGAN CHASE BANK V. TRAFFIC STREAM (BVI)INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. [Syllabus] A corporation organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands is a "citize[n] or subjec[t] of a foreign state" for purposes of alienage diversity jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. §1332(a)(2).
	BARNETT BANK OF MARION COUNTY, N. A. V. NELSON, FLORIDA INS. COMM'R, 517 U.S. 25 (1996) [Syllabus]
	BARCLAYS BANK PLC V. FRANCHISE TAX BD. OF CAL., 114 S. CT. 2268, 129 L. [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. HOME STATE BANK, 501 U.S. 78 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INS. CO. V. UNIONPLANTERS BANK, N. A. [Syllabus] Does a postpetition administrative creditor in a bankruptcy case have standing under 11 U.S.C. 506© to seek payment of its administrative claim from property of the bankruptcy estate that is encumbered by a secured creditor's lien?"
	UNITED STATES NAT'L BANK OF ORE. V. INDEPENDENT INS. AGENTS, 508 U.S. 439 (1993) [Syllabus]
	WATTERS V. WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. [Syllabus]
	BEACH V. OCWEN FED. BANK, 523 U.S. 410 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RIVET V. REGIONS BANK OF LA., 522 U.S. 470 (1998) [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:
	REPUBLIC NAT'L BANK OF MIAMI V. UNITED STATES, 506 U.S. 80 (1992). [Syllabus]
	COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK V. FLORIDA PREPAIDPOSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSE BD. [Syllabus]
	CITIZENS BANK OF MARYLAND V. STRUMPF, 516 U.S. 16 (1995). [Syllabus]
	JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS. V. HARRIS TRUST & SAV. BANK, 510 U.S. 86 (1993). [Syllabus]
	NOBELMAN V. AMERICAN SAV. BANK, 508 U.S. 324 (1993). [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."
	FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK [Syllabus]
	WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. V. SCHMIDT [Syllabus]
	BANK OF AMERICA NAT. TRUST AND SAV. ASSN. V.203 NORTH LASALLE STREET PARTNERSHIP [Syllabus]
	MERITOR SAVINGS BANK V. VINSON [Concurrence]
	MERITOR SAVINGS BANK V. VINSON [Opinion]
	MERITOR SAVINGS BANK V. VINSON [Syllabus]
	MERITOR SAVINGS BANK V. VINSON [Concurrence]
	WATTERS V. WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. [Syllabus]
	BANK ONE CHICAGO, N. A. V. MIDWEST BANK & TRUST CO., 516 U.S. 264 (1996). [Syllabus]
	WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. V. SCHMIDT [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:
	BANK OF AMERICA NAT. TRUST AND SAV. ASSN. V.203 NORTH LASALLE STREET PARTNERSHIP [Syllabus]
	RIVET V. REGIONS BANK OF LA., 522 U.S. 470 (1998) [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. HOME STATE BANK, 501 U.S. 78 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BEACH V. OCWEN FED. BANK, 523 U.S. 410 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL BANK OF DENVER V. FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF DENVER, 114 S. CT. 1439, (1994) [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMIN. V. FIRST NAT. BANK & TRUST CO., 522 U.S. 479 (1998) [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."
	HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INS. CO. V. UNIONPLANTERS BANK, N. A. [Syllabus] Does a postpetition administrative creditor in a bankruptcy case have standing under 11 U.S.C. 506© to seek payment of its administrative claim from property of the bankruptcy estate that is encumbered by a secured creditor's lien?"
	JPMORGAN CHASE BANK V. TRAFFIC STREAM (BVI)INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. [Syllabus] A corporation organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands is a "citize[n] or subjec[t] of a foreign state" for purposes of alienage diversity jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. §1332(a)(2).
	COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK V. FLORIDA PREPAIDPOSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSE BD. [Syllabus]
	BARNETT BANK OF MARION COUNTY, N. A. V. NELSON, FLORIDA INS. COMM'R, 517 U.S. 25 (1996) [Syllabus]
	REPUBLIC NAT'L BANK OF MIAMI V. UNITED STATES, 506 U.S. 80 (1992). [Syllabus]
	MARRAMA V. CITIZENS BANK OF MASS. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES NAT'L BANK OF ORE. V. INDEPENDENT INS. AGENTS, 508 U.S. 439 (1993) [Syllabus]
	JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS. V. HARRIS TRUST & SAV. BANK, 510 U.S. 86 (1993). [Syllabus]
	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?""."
	CITIZENS BANK OF MARYLAND V. STRUMPF, 516 U.S. 16 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SMILEY V. CITIBANK (S.D.), N. A., 517 U.S. 735 (1996). [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)."
	NOBELMAN V. AMERICAN SAV. BANK, 508 U.S. 324 (1993). [Syllabus]
	BARCLAYS BANK PLC V. FRANCHISE TAX BD. OF CAL., 114 S. CT. 2268, 129 L. [Syllabus]
	BARNHILL V. JOHNSON, 503 U.S. 393 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WINSTAR CORP. ET AL., 518 U.S. 839 (1996). [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA BANKSHARES, INC. V. SANDBERG, 501 U.S. 1083 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ATHERTON V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 519 U.S. 213 (1997). [Syllabus]
	NEDER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	STONERIDGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC V.SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MCDERMOTT, 507 U.S. 448 (1993) [Syllabus]
	REPUBLIC OF ARG. V. WELTOVER, INC., 504 U.S. 607 (1992). [Syllabus]
	GEORGE V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 497 U.S. 396 (1990) [Syllabus]
	NATIONSBANK OF N.C. V. VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE INS. CO., 513 U.S. 251 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. O'HAGAN, 117 S.CT. 2199, 138 L.ED.2D 724 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 519 U.S. 482 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GAUBERT, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CABRALES, 524 U.S. 1 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LOUISIANA V. MISSISSIPPI, 516 U.S. 22 (1995) [Syllabus]
	ROWLAND V. CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK CTY. V.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS [Syllabus] Whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, consistent with the Clean Waters Act and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, may assert jurisdiction over isolated intrastate waters solely because those waters solely because those waters do or potentially could serve as habitat of migratory birds."
	RATZLAF V. UNITED STATES, 510 U.S. 135 (1994). [Syllabus]
	HEINTZ V. JENKINS, 514 U.S. 291 (1995). [Syllabus]
	EC TERM OF YEARS TRUST V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	LEBRON V. NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP., 513 U.S. 374 (1995). [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM N V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TOLIFE, INC. [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN NAT. RED CROSS V. S. G., 505 U.S. 247 (1992). [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.
	DEAL V. UNITED STATES, 508 U.S. 129 (1993). [Syllabus]
	ALEXANDER V. SANDOVAL [Syllabus] There is no private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
	LAPIDES V. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. SYSTEMOF GA. [Syllabus] A State waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity when it removes a case from state court to federal court.
	DOLE FOOD CO. V. PATRICKSON [Syllabus] Whether a corporation in which a foreign sovereign controls a majority of the shares indirectly through ownership of the corporation’s ultimate parent may qualify as a foriegn state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunitities Act
	MONTEREY V. DEL MONTE DUNES ATMONTEREY, LTD. [Syllabus]
	SUITUM V. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, 520 U.S. 725 (1997) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MONTALVO-MURILLO, 495 U.S. 711 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. REOGANIZED CF&I FABRICATORS OF UTAH, INC., ET AL., 518 U.S. 213 (1996) [Syllabus]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BALSYS, 524 U.S. 666 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BUFORD V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Deferential review is appropriate when an appeals court reviews a trial court's Sentencing Guideline determination as to whether an offender's prior convictions were consolidated for sentencing purposes.
	ARLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST. BD. OF ED. V.MURPHY [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?
	CHAMBERS V. NASCO, INC., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LOCKHART V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	PATTERSON V. SHUMATE, 504 U.S. 753 (1992). [Syllabus]
	COOK COUNTY V. UNITED STATES EX REL.CHANDLER [Syllabus] Local governments are "persons" amenable to qui tam actions under the federal False Claims Act.
	LONCHAR V. THOMAS, WARDEN, 517 U.S. 314 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ANTOINE V. BYERS & ANDERSON, INC., 508 U.S. 429 (1993). [Syllabus]
	BRANCH V. SMITH [Syllabus] The Federal District Court properly enjoined a Mississippi state court's proposed congressional redistricting plan and fashioned its own plan under 2 U. S. C. §2c.
	ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997). [Syllabus]
	GRUPO MEXICANO DE DESARROLLO, S. A. V. ALLIANCE BOND FUND, INC. [Syllabus]
	NEVADA DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES V. HIBBS [Syllabus] Whether 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2612 (a) (1) (C) exceeds Congress's enforcement authority under Section 5 of the Foruteenth Amendment.
	BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) [Syllabus]
	REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA V. ALTMANN [Syllabus] Does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) confer jurisdiction in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over the Republic of Austria and the state-owned Austrian Gallery in a suit alleging wrongful appropriation of six Gustav Klimt paintings from their rightful heirs?
	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?
	CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 416 (1996). [Syllabus]
	MCINTYRE V. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). [Syllabus]
	DICKERSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether the passage of 18 U.S.C. 3501 Was an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to legislatively overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)?"
	PALAZZOLO V. RHODE ISLAND [Syllabus] Petitioner's claim that Rhode Island's application of its wetlands regulations took his property without compensation in violation of the Takings Clause is ripe for review and is not barred by his acquisition of title after the regulations' effective date; however, he failed to establish a deprivation of all economic use, for the parcel retains significant development value.
	HIBBS V. WINN [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GONZALES, 520 U.S. 1 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ESTATE OF ROMANII, 523 U.S. 517 (1998) [Syllabus]
	STINSON V. UNITED STATES, 508 U.S. 36 (1993). [Syllabus]
	DESERT PALACE, INC. V. COSTA [Syllabus] 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that direct evidence is not required in Title VII cases to trigger the application of the mixed-motive analysis set out in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins? 2. What are the appropriate standards for lower courts to follow in making a direct evidence determination in mixed-motive cases under Title VII?
	HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. V. JACOBSON [Syllabus]
	SAN REMO HOTEL, L. P. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SANFRANCISCO [Syllabus]
	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.
	ALLIED-SIGNAL, INC. V. DIRECTOR, DIV. OF TAXATION, 504 U.S. 768 (1992). [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."
	AMERICAN INS. ASSN. V. GARAMENDI [Syllabus] California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (HVIRA) requires California insurers to provide extensive information regarding every insurance policy issued in Nazi dominated Europe between 1920 and 1945 by any insurer with which the California insurer now has a legal relationship. The district court enjoined enforcement of the Act on three constitutional grounds: interference with the federal government's power over foreign affairs, due process, and the Foreign Commerce Clause. Over the objections of the U.S. government and affected foreign governments, and in direct conflict with Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Gallagher, 267 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit reversed and upheld the HVIRA in all respects. 1. Whether the HVIRA, which the U.S. government has called an actual interference with U.S. foreign policy, and which affected foreign governments have protested as inconsistent with international agreements, violates the foreign affairs doctrine of Zschering v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968). 2. Whether the HVIRA, which attempts to regulate insurance transactions that occurred overseas between foreign parties more than half a century ago, exceeds California's legislative jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. 3. Whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1011-1015, insulates the HVIRA form review under the Foreign Commerce Clause.
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BRYAN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S 184 (1998) [Syllabus]
	TILL V. SCS CREDIT CORP. [Syllabus]
	DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF ED. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, 514 U.S. 527 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF ENERGY V. OHIO, 503 U.S. 607 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ROUSEY V. JACOWAY [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. VONN [Syllabus] A defendant who does not object to a trial court's error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 must satisfy Rule 52(b)'s plain-error rule in order to withdraw a guilty plea; a reviewing court may look beyond the plea colloquy to the whole record in determining whether the defendant's substantial rights were affected by the Rule 11 error.
	EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. SAUDI BASIC INDUSTRIES CORP. [Syllabus]
	J. E. M. AG SUPPLY, INC. V. PIONEER HI-BREDINTERNATIONAL, INC. [Syllabus] Utility patents may be issued for newly developed plant breeds under 35 U. S. C. §101; neither the Plant Variety Protection Act nor the Plant Patent Act of 1930 limits the scope of §101's coverage.
	BATES V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 23 (1997) [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. FORKLIFT SYS., 510 U.S. 17 (1993). [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. RECUENCO [Syllabus]
	DUSENBERY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] The Government's sending of notice by certified mail of a cash forfeiture to petitioner's place of incarceration satisfied his due process rights.
	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."