Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query contract returned 119 results.

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

	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.
	CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLA. V. LEAVITT [Syllabus]
	PRESTON V. FERRER [Syllabus]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. JAMES N. KIRBY,PTY LTD. [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN AIRLINES V. WOLENS, 513 U.S. 219 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WINSTAR CORP. ET AL., 518 U.S. 839 (1996). [Syllabus]
	LITTON FINANCIAL PRINTING DIVISION V. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) [Syllabus]
	TEST TWO V. TEST TWO [Syllabus]
	JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS. V. HARRIS TRUST & SAV. BANK, 510 U.S. 86 (1993). [Syllabus]
	AUCIELLO IRON WORKS, INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD., 517 U.S. 781 (1996) [Syllabus]
	ORFF V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MOBIL OIL EXPLORATION & PRODUCINGSOUTHEAST, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding-contrary to decisions of this Court, other courts of appeals, and state courts, as well as the Restatements and leading treatises-that petitioner could not receive restitution of the $78 million paid to the United States for oil and gas leases following the enactment of a statute, which the trial court found ""clearly reduce(d) the value and materially alter(ed) the structure and framework"" of those leases, because (1) petitioner had not proved that this material breach of its leases caused it any injury and (2) Congress repealed the statute after petitioner filed suit asserting material breach?"
	[Syllabus]
	SEC V. EDWARDS [Syllabus] Whether the Court of appeals erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that an investment scheme is excluded from the term investment contract in the definitions of ''securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(10), if the promoter promises a fixed rather than variable return or if the investor is contractually entitled to a particular amount or rate of return.
	GUSTAFSON V. ALLOYD CO., 513 U.S. 561 (1995). [Syllabus]
	LUJAN V. G & G FIRE SPRINKLERS, INC. [Syllabus] Because California law affords respondent public works project subcontractor sufficient opportunity to pursue its claim for payment under its contracts in state court, the statutory scheme does not deprive respondent of due process when it authorizes the State to order withholding of such payments from the contractor if a subcontractor fails to comply with certain Labor Code requirements; permits the contractor, in turn, to withhold similar sums from the subcontractor; and permits the contractor, or his assignee, to sue the awarding body for alleged breach of the contract.
	GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP. V. BAZZLE [Syllabus] Whether the federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.1et seq., prohibits class-action procedures from being superimposed onto an arbitration agreement that does not provide for class action arbitration.
	CISNEROS V. ALPINE RIDGE GROUP, 508 U.S. 10 (1993). [Syllabus]
	DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL. V. CASAROTTO ET UX., 517 U.S. 681 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ALLIED-BRUCE TERMINIX COS. V. DOBSON, 513 U.S. 265 (1995). [Syllabus]
	FRANCONIA ASSOCIATES  V.  UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Because the enactment of the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987 qualified as a repudiation, rather than a present breach, of the immediate-prepayment provision of petitioners' loan agreements with the Farmers Home Administration, breach would occur, and 28 U. S. C. §2501's six-year limitations period would commence to run, when a borrower tenders prepayment and the Government then dishonors its obligation to accept the tender and release its control over use of the property securing the loan.
	EXXON CORP. V. CENTRAL GULF LINES, INC., 500 U.S. 603 (1991) [Syllabus]
	TENET V. DOE [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MASTROBUONO V. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC., 514 U.S. 52 (1995). [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL EMPLOYEES V. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 526 U.S. 86 (1999) [Syllabus]
	UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. WARD [Syllabus]
	MARQUEZ V. SCREEN ACTORS [Syllabus]
	TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA V.PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO. [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS, WABAUNSEE COUNTY, KAN. V. UMBEHR, 518 U.S.668 (1996) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 507 U.S. 746 (1993). [Syllabus]
	BARNES V. GORMAN [Syllabus] Punitive damages may not be awarded in private suits brought under §202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
	TILL V. SCS CREDIT CORP. [Syllabus]
	KOKKONEN V. GUARDIAN LIFE INS., 511 U.S. 375 (1994). [Syllabus]
	HALL STREET ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. V. MATTEL, INC. [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL PARK HOSPITALITY ASSN. V.DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR [Syllabus] Whether the Contract Disputed Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601-613, applies to contracts between the National Park Service and private parties for the development, operation, and maintenance of concessions, such as restaurants, lodges, and gift shops, in the national parks.
	REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA V. DOE, 519 U.S. 425 (1997). [Syllabus]
	EXXON CO., U. S. A., ET AL. V. SOFEC, INC., ET AL., 516 U.S. 1156 (1996). [Syllabus]
	QUACKENBUSH, CAL. INS. COMM'R, ET AL. V. ALLSTATE INS. CO., 517 U.S. 706 (1996) [Syllabus]
	SARATOGA FISHING CO. V. J. M. MARTINAC & CO., 520 U.S. 875 (1997) [Syllabus]
	RIVERS V. ROADWAY EXPRESS, 511 U.S. 298 (1994). [Syllabus]
	CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. V. ADAMS [Syllabus] Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act-which excludes from that Act's coverage "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce"-exempts the employment contracts of transportation workers, but not other employment contracts.
	COMMISSIONER V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	BAKER BY THOMAS V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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.
	BP AMERICA PRODUCTION CO. V. BURTON [Syllabus]
	KOONS BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC. V. NIGH [Syllabus]
	HERCULES INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 417 (1996). [Syllabus]
	TEXTRON LYCOMING RECIPROCATING ENGINE DIV., AVCO CORP. V. AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, 523 U.S. 653 (1998) [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC., 524 U.S. 214 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[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.
	CHAMBERS V. NASCO, INC., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) [Syllabus]
	NEBRASKA V. WYOMING, 515 U.S. 1 (1995) [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?
	[Syllabus]
	WRIGHT V. UNIVERSAL MARITIME SERVICE CORP. [Syllabus]
	MEDIMMUNE, INC. V. GENENTECH, INC. [Syllabus]
	FIRST OPTIONS OF CHICAGO, INC. V. KAPLAN, 514 U.S. 938 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BUILDING & CONSTR. TRADES COUNCIL OF THE METRO. DIST. V. ASSOCIATED BUILDERS [Syllabus]
	COHEN V. COWLES MEDIA CO., 501 U.S. 663 (1991) [Syllabus]
	EEOC V. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC. [Syllabus] An agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes does not bar the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages, in an action to enforce Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
	WHARF (HOLDINGS) LTD. V. UNITED INT’LHOLDINGS, INC. SYLLABUS [Syllabus] A company that sells an option to buy stock while secretly intending never to honor the option violates §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits using "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance" "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."
	BELL ATLANTIC CORP. V. TWOMBLY [Syllabus]
	CORTEZ BYRD CHIPS, INC. V. BILL HARBERTCONSTR. CO. [Syllabus] Whether a suit to vacate an arbitration award may be brought in the district in which the events in the underlying dispute occurred.
	HOWSAM V. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC. [Syllabus] A National Association of Securities Dealers arbitrator, rather than a court, should apply the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure's time limit rule to a client's dispute with a broker.
	KAMEN V. KEMPER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., 500 U.S. 90 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS V. PENA, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). [Syllabus]
	GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP.-ALA. V. RANDOLPH [Syllabus] 1. Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that an order compelling arbitration and dismissing a lawsuit's underlying claims is a ""final decision with respect to an arbitration"" appealable under 9 U.S.C. 16 (a) (3). 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that arbitration provision that was ""silent"" on the issue of costs and fees was unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act because the risk that plaintiff "" be required to bear unknown costs and fees potentially undermined her ability to vindicate statutory rights."
	KANSAS ET AL. V UTILICORP UNITED, INC., 497 U.S. 199 (1990) [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."
	ROUSEY V. JACOWAY [Syllabus]
	GISBRECHT V. BARNHART [Syllabus] Title 42 U. S. C. §406(b) does not displace contingent-fee agreements between Social Security benefits claimants and their counsel within the ceiling set forth in §406(b)(1)(A); instead it instructs courts to review for reasonableness fees yielded by those agreements.
	GRUPO MEXICANO DE DESARROLLO, S. A. V. ALLIANCE BOND FUND, INC. [Syllabus]
	DIGITAL EQUIQ. CORP. V. DESKTOP DIRECT, INC., 511 U.S. 863 (1994). [Syllabus]
	MURPHY BROTHERS, INC. V. MICHETTI PIPESTRINGING, INC. [Syllabus]
	RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997). [Syllabus]
	AIR LINE PILOTS V. MILLER, 523 U.S. 866 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GEBSER V. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) [Syllabus]
	POSTAL SERVICE V. FLAMINGO INDUSTRIES (USA) LTD. [Syllabus] The federal antitrust laws apply to a person, which is defined to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of * * * the United States. 15 U.S.C.7 (sherman Act), 12 (a) (Clayton Act). The question presented is whether the United States Postal Service is a person amenable to suit under the antitrust laws.
	CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES [Syllabus]
	ROCKWELL INT L CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF TREASURY V. FABE, 508 U.S. 491 (1993). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORP. V. MINE WORKERS [Syllabus] 1. Whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, there is a well defined and dominant public policy that prohibits enforcement of arbitration awards requiring reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of employees who test positive for illegal drugs, or whether, as the Second, Ninth, Tenth, and now Fourth Circuits have held, no such policy exists and courts must therefore uphold reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of those who test positive for illegal drugs. 2. Whether, as the Fourth, Ninth, and District of Columbia have held, an arbitration award should be vacated on public policy grounds only when the award itself violates positive law or requires unlawful conduct by the employer, or whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, such an award need not violate positive law to violate public policy---a question on which the Court granted certiorari, but did not reach, in United Paperwork's International Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987)."
	NORFOLK & WESTERN R. CO. V. AYERS [Syllabus] Mental anguish damages resulting from the fear of developing cancer may be recovered under the Federal Employers' Liability Act by a railroad worker suffering from the actionable injury asbestosis caused by work-related exposure to asbestos; the FELA's express terms, reinforced by consistent judicial applications of the Act, allow such a worker to recover his entire damages from a railroad whose negligence jointly caused his injury, thus placing on the railroad the burden of seeking contribution from other potential tortfeasors.
	CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORP. V. MALESKO [Syllabus] The limited holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, may not be extended to confer a right of action for damages against private entities acting under color of federal law.
	FISCHER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether Medicare payments to a hospital for services provided to Medicare patients qualify as ""benefits"" to meet the jurisdictional requirements of Title 18 U.S.C. 666 so as to federalize crimes of theft, embezzlement, and bribery involving the hospital?"
	VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. REEDER-SIMCO GMC, INC. [Syllabus]
	LIVADAS V. BRADSHAW, 512 U.S. 107 (1994). [Syllabus]
	SECURITY SERVS. V. KMART, 511 U.S. 222 (1994). [Syllabus]
	SINOCHEM INT L CO. V. MALAYSIA INT L SHIPPINGCORP. [Syllabus]
	HOLLY FARMS CORP. ET AL. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD. ET AL., 517 U.S. 392 (1996) [Syllabus]
	DELAWARE V. NEW YORK, 507 U.S. 490 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MCDERMOTT, INC. V. AMCLYDE, 511 U.S. 202 (1994) [Syllabus]
	GILMER V. INTERSTATE/JOHNSON LANE CORP., 500 U.S. 20 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	LEHNERY V. FERRIS FACULTY ASSN., 500 U.S. 507 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MCKUNE V. LILE [Syllabus] The Tenth Circuit's judgment-that Kansas prison officials' threat to reduce respondent inmate's privilege status and transfer him to maximum security if he refused to participate in a sexual abuse treatment program constituted compelled self-incrimination violative of the Fifth Amendment-is reversed, and the case is remanded.
	MAISLIN INDUSTRIES, U.S. V. PRIMARY STEEL, 497 U.S. 116 (1990) [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK AND WESTERN R. CO. V. TRAIN DISPATCHERS ASSOCIATION, 499 U.S. 117 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. UNITED STATES, 507 U.S. 197 (1993). [Syllabus]
	WEST V. GIBSON [Syllabus]
	NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INS. V. DARDEN, 503 U.S. 318 (1992). [Syllabus]
	KIOWA TRIBE OF OK V. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FMC CORP. V. HOLLIDAY, 498 U.S. 52 (1990) [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. PRO FOOTBALL, INC.., 518 U.S. 231 (1996) [Syllabus]
	FIDELITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. V. FINK, 522 U.S. 221 (1998) [Syllabus]
	REGINA COLLEGE V. RUSSELL, 499 U.S. 225 [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT V. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, 519 U.S. 316 (1997) [Syllabus]
	ARCHER V. WARNER [Syllabus] A debt for money promised in a settlement agreement accompanied by the release of underlying tort claims can amount to a debt for money obtained by fraud, within the terms of 11 U. S. C. §523(a)(2)(A), the Bankruptcy Code's nondischargeability provision.
	WATSON V. PHILIP MORRIS COS. [Syllabus]
	GROVES V. RING SCREW WORKS, FERNDALE DIV., 498 U.S. 168 (1990) [Syllabus]
	BE&K CONSTR. CO. V. NLRB [Syllabus] Respondent National Labor Relations Board lacked authority to find that petitioner violated federal labor law by prosecuting against respondent unions an unsuccessful lawsuit with a retaliatory motive.
	OUBRE V. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC., 522 U.S. 422 (1998) [Syllabus]
	REPUBLIC OF ARG. V. WELTOVER, INC., 504 U.S. 607 (1992). [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).
	INGERSOLL-RAND CO. V. MCCLENDON, 498 U.S. 133 (1990) [Syllabus]