Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query corporation returned 126 results.

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

	LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION V. VELAZQUEZ [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals erred in refusing to follow this Court's decision in Rust V. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1990) when it invalidated a limitation imposed by congress on the services that may be provided by legal Services Corporation grantees and held that Congress must subsidize grantees involved in litigation that seeks to amend or otherwise challenges existing welfare laws."
	TENNESSEE STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORPORATION V. HOOD [Syllabus]
	ATHERTON V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 519 U.S. 213 (1997). [Syllabus]
	KASSEL V. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE [Opinion]
	EX PARTE BAKELITE CORPORATION [Syllabus]
	KASSEL V. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE [Syllabus]
	KASSEL V. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE [Dissent]
	EX PARTE BAKELITE CORPORATION [Opinion]
	KASSEL V. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE [Concurrence]
	ATHERTON V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 519 U.S. 213 (1997). [Syllabus]
	LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION V. VELAZQUEZ [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals erred in refusing to follow this Court's decision in Rust V. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1990) when it invalidated a limitation imposed by congress on the services that may be provided by legal Services Corporation grantees and held that Congress must subsidize grantees involved in litigation that seeks to amend or otherwise challenges existing welfare laws."
	TENNESSEE STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORPORATION V. HOOD [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."
	CEDRIC KUSHNER PROMOTIONS, LTD. V. KING [Syllabus] The RICO provision forbidding "any person employed by or associated with any enterprise . . . to conduct or participate . . . in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity," 18 U. S. C. §1962(c), applies when a corporate employee unlawfully conducts the affairs of the corporation of which he is the sole owner-whether he conducts those affairs within the scope, or beyond the scope, of corporate authority.
	BOULWARE V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	LEBRON V. NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP., 513 U.S. 374 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ALLIED-SIGNAL, INC. V. DIRECTOR, DIV. OF TAXATION, 504 U.S. 768 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BESTFOODS, 524 U.S. 51 (1998) [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?
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N V. BEAUMONT [Syllabus] The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. 441b, prohibits corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign contributions and independent expenditures in connection with federal elections. The question presented is whether Section 441b's prohibition on contributions violates the First Amendment to the Constitution if it is applied to a nonprofit corporation whose primary purpose is to engage in political advocacy.
	NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATIONV. MORGAN [Syllabus] A plaintiff raising claims of discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must file his charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the appropriate 180- or 300-day statutory filing period, but a charge alleging a hostile work environment will not be time barred if all acts constituting the claim are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act falls within the filing period; in neither instance is a court precluded from applying equitable doctrines that may toll or limit the time period.
	BAY AREA LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING PENSION TRUST FUND V. FERBAR CORP. OF CALIFORNIA, 522 U.S. 192 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[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.
	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
	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?
	MEYER V. HOLLEY [Syllabus] The Fair Housing Act imposes liability without fault upon a corporate employer in accordance with traditional agency principles, i.e., it normally imposes vicarious liability upon the corporation but not upon its officers or owners.
	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).
	NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP. V. BOSTON & ME. CORP., 503 U.S. 407 (1992). [Syllabus]
	BUFFERD V. COMMISSIONER, 506 U.S. 523 (1993). [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.
	LINCOLN PROPERTY CO. V. ROCHE [Syllabus]
	INYO COUNTY V. PAIUTE-SHOSHONE INDIANS OFBISHOP COMMUNITY OF BISHOP COLONY [Syllabus] 1. Whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity enable Indians tribes, their gambling casinos and other commercial businesses to prohibit the searching of their property by law enforcement officers for criminal evidence pertaining to the commission of off-reservation State crimes, when the search is pursuant to a search warrant issued upon probable cause. 2. Whether such a search by State law enforcement officers constitutes a violation of the tribe's civil rights that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 3. Whether, if such a search is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the State law enforcement officers who conducted the search pursuant to the warrant are nonetheless entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM N V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TOLIFE, INC. [Syllabus]
	GOLLUST V. MENDELL, 501 U.S. 115 (1991) [Syllabus]
	CATERPILLAR INC. V. LEWIS, 519 U.S. 61 (1996) [Syllabus]
	KAMEN V. KEMPER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., 500 U.S. 90 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. O'HAGAN, 117 S.CT. 2199, 138 L.ED.2D 724 (1997). [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.
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FIELD ET AL. V. MANS, 516 U.S. 59 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON NORTHERN R. V. FORD, 504 U.S. 648 (1992). [Syllabus]
	EXXON CORP. V. CENTRAL GULF LINES, INC., 500 U.S. 603 (1991) [Syllabus]
	O'MELVENY & MYERS V. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79 (1994). [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.
	[Syllabus]
	STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	F.D.I.C. V. MEYER, 510 U.S. 471 (1994). [Syllabus]
	PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. V. THE LTV CORP., 496 U.S. 633 (1990) [Syllabus]
	HESS V. PORT AUTH.. TRANS-HUDSON CORP., 115 S. CT. 394, 130 L. ED. 2D 245 (1994) [Syllabus]
	MEADWESTVACO CORP. V. ILLINOIS DEPT. OFREVENUE [Syllabus]
	FULTON CORP. V. FAULKNER, SECRETARY OF REVENUE OF N. C., 516 U.S. 325 (1996). [Syllabus]
	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.
	UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP., 517 U.S. 843 (1996). [Syllabus]
	EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION V. ARABIAN AMERICAN OIL CO., 499 U.S. 244 (1991) [Syllabus]
	GRUPO DATAFLUX V. ATLAS GLOBAL GROUP, L. P. [Syllabus] (1) Did the court of appeals err by creating a new exception to the longstanding rule that diversity jurisdiction must be determined based on a party's citizenship and circumstances as they existed at the time suit was filed? (2) Did the court of appeals err by allowing a unilateral change in a party's citizenship during the course of litigation to create diversity jurisdiction that did not exist at the time suit was filed?
	ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	KEY TRONIC CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 511 U.S. 809 (1994). [Syllabus]
	ERIE V. PAP’S A. M. [Syllabus] Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States?
	ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE V. DUKE ENERGY CORP. [Syllabus]
	THINGS REMEMBERED, INC. V. PETRARCA, 516 U.S. 124 (1995). [Syllabus]
	FMC CORP. V. HOLLIDAY, 498 U.S. 52 (1990) [Syllabus]
	DIGITAL EQUIQ. CORP. V. DESKTOP DIRECT, INC., 511 U.S. 863 (1994). [Syllabus]
	EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. ALLAPATTAH SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 461 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY. [Syllabus]
	CUYAHOGA FALLS V. BUCKEYE COMMUNITYHOPE FOUNDATION [Syllabus] Respondents have presented no genuine issues of material fact with regard to whether Cuyahoga Falls violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses by submitting to voters a facially neutral referendum petition calling for the repeal of a municipal ordinance authorizing construction of a low-income housing complex.
	CLEVELAND V. POLICY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CORP. [Syllabus]
	LEDBETTER V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. [Syllabus]
	LOCKHEED CORP. ET AL. V. SPINK, 517 U.S. 882 (1996). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SALERNO, 505 U.S. 317 (1992). [Syllabus]
	JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS. V. HARRIS TRUST & SAV. BANK, 510 U.S. 86 (1993). [Syllabus]
	CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORP. V. GOTTSHALL, 114 S. CT. 2396, 129 L. ED. 2D 427 (1994) [Syllabus]
	METRO NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD CO. V. BUCKLEY, 521 U.S. 424 (1997) [Syllabus]
	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.
	INTEL CORP. V. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES SHOE CORP., 523 U.S. 360 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MATSUSHITA ELEC. INDUS. CO., LTD., ET AL. V. EPSTEIN ET AL., 516 U.S. 367 (1996) [Syllabus]
	QUILL CORP. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 504 U.S. 298 (1992). [Syllabus]
	HOLMES V. SECS. INVESTOR PROTECTION CORP., 503 U.S. 258 (1992). [Syllabus]
	KRAFT GEN. FOODS V. IOWA DEP'T OF REVENUE & FINANCE, 505 U.S. 71 (1992). [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	CUTTER V. WILKINSON [Syllabus]
	NELSON V. ADAMS USA, INC. [Syllabus] Whether a United States District Court, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, can assess attorney's fees against a non-party pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285 without first securing service of process upon, and jurisdiction over, that nonparty. Whether a non-party shareholder/officer of a corporate party which lost a patent infringement lawsuit on the merits is subject to an award of attorney fees pursuant to a statute (35 U.S.C. 285) that authorizes an award of attorney fees to the ''prevailing party"" but makes no reference as to the party who must pay the award."
	ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP. [Syllabus]
	JEROME B. GRUBART, INC. V. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO., 513 U.S. 527 (1995). [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN DREDGING V. MILLER, 510 U.S. 443 (1994). [Syllabus]
	GEISSAL V. MOORE MEDICAL CORP., 524 U.S. 74 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BAKER BY THOMAS V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) [Syllabus]
	PORTLAND GOLF CLUB V. COMMISSIONER, 497 U.S. 154 (1990) [Syllabus]
	INTERNATIONAL SOC. FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS V. LEE, 505 U.S. 672 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. URSERY, 518 U.S. 267 (1996). [Syllabus]
	O'CONNOR V. CONSOLIDATED COIN CATERERS CORP., 517 U.S. 308 (1996). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. REOGANIZED CF&I FABRICATORS OF UTAH, INC., ET AL., 518 U.S. 213 (1996) [Syllabus]
	BLACK & DECKER DISABILITY PLAN V. NORD [Syllabus] Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that an ERISA disability plan administrator's determination of disability is subject to the treating physician rule and, therefore, the plan administrator is required to accept a treating physician's opinion of disability as controlling unless the plan administrator rebuts that opinion in writing based upon substantial evidence on the record.
	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."
	MARTIN V. OSHRC, 499 U.S. 144 (1991) [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	POWEREX CORP. V. RELIANT ENERGY SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	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."
	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.
	UNITED STATES V. GAUBERT, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) [Syllabus]
	CAMPS NEWFOUND/OWATONNA, INC. V. TOWN OF HARRISON, 520 U.S. 564 (1997) [Syllabus]
	ENTERGY LA., INC. V. LOUISIANA PUB. SERV. COMM’N [Syllabus] Whether Mississippi Power & light v. Mississippi ex rel. Moore, 487 U.S. 354 (1988), and Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg, 476 U.S. 953 (1986), require a state public utility commission to allow an electric utility member of a multi-state power system to recover, in retail rates, the costs allocated to it by a rate schedule of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), or whether the state commission has jurisdiction to decide that it was imprudent for such a utility to incur the costs allocated to it under a FERC rate schedule, thereby trapping such wholesale costs?
	SINOCHEM INT L CO. V. MALAYSIA INT L SHIPPINGCORP. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CARLTON, 512 U.S. 26 (1994). [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MADIGAN V. TELEMARKETINGASSOCIATES, INC. [Syllabus] Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated.
	VARITY CORP. V. HOWE ET AL., 516 U.S. 489 (1996). [Syllabus]
	WATTERS V. WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. [Syllabus]
	ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL CORP. V. RASH ET UX., 117 S.CT. 1879, 138 L.ED.2D (1997) [Syllabus]
	SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. ALABAMA [Syllabus]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	HOLLY FARMS CORP. ET AL. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD. ET AL., 517 U.S. 392 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MINNESOTA V. MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWAINDIANS [Syllabus]
	LEXECON INC. V. MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH 523 U.S. 26 (1998) [Syllabus]
	KSR INT L CO. V. TELEFLEX INC. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSN., INC. [Syllabus] The children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), Pub. L. No. 106-554, Div B, Tit. XVll, 114 State. 2763A-335, provides that a library that is otherwise eligible for special federal assistance for Internet access in the form of discount rates for educational purposes under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 254(h) (Supp, V 1999), or grants under the Library Services and Technology Act, 20 U.S.C. 9121 et seq., may not receive that assistance unless the library has in place a policy that includes the operation of technology protection measure on Internet-connected computers that protects against access by all persons to visual depictions that are obscene or child pornography, and that protects against access by minors to visual depictions that harmful to minors. 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6)(B) and (C) (Supp.V 1999); 20 U.S.C. 9134(f)(1). The question presented is whether CIPA induces public libraries to violate the First Amendment, there by exceeding Congress's power under the Spending Clause.
	UNITED STATES NAT'L BANK OF ORE. V. INDEPENDENT INS. AGENTS, 508 U.S. 439 (1993) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SPRIETSMA V. MERCURY MARINE [Syllabus] A state common-law tort action seeking damages from the manufacturer of an outboard motor is not pre-empted by the enactment of the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 or by the Coast Guard's decision not to promulgate a regulation requiring propeller guards on motorboats.
	CENTRAL VA. COMMUNITY COLLEGE V. KATZ [Syllabus]
	NYNEX CORP. V. DISCON, INC. [Syllabus]
	BECK V. PACE INT L UNION [Syllabus]
	GENERAL MOTORS CORP. V. TRACY, TAX COMM'R OF OHIO, 519 U.S. 278 (1997). [Syllabus]
	DASTAR CORP. V. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOXFILM CORP. [Syllabus] 1. Does the Lanham Act protect creative works form uncredited copying, even without a likelihood of consumer confusion? 2. May a court applying the Lanham Act award twice the defendant's profits for purely deterrent purposes?
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N V. AKINS, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WISCONSIN DEP'T OF REVENUE V. WILLIAM WRIGLEY, JR., CO., 505 U.S. 214 (1992). [Syllabus]
	EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. SAUDI BASIC INDUSTRIES CORP. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WINSTAR CORP. ET AL., 518 U.S. 839 (1996). [Syllabus]
	CONCRETE PIPE & PRODUCTS OF CAL. V. CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST, 508 U.S. 602 (1993) [Syllabus]
	FESTO CORP. V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYOKABUSHIKI CO. [Syllabus] Prosecution history estoppel may apply to any claim amendment made to satisfy the Patent Act's requirements, not just to amendments made to avoid the prior art, but estoppel need not bar suit against every equivalent to the amended claim element.
	KEENE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 508 U.S. 200 (1993). [Syllabus]
	TRIVONA CORP. V. MICHIGAN DEPT. OF TREASURY, 498 U.S. 358 (1991) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]