Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query navigation or maritime returned 33 results.

	FEDERAL MARITIME COMM’N V. SOUTH CAROLINAPORTS AUTHORITY [Syllabus] State sovereign immunity bars the Federal Maritime Commission from adjudicating a private party's complaint against a nonconsenting State.
	MILES V. APEX MARINE CORP.., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) [Syllabus]
	WRIGHT V. UNIVERSAL MARITIME SERVICE CORP. [Syllabus]
	YAMAHA MOTOR CORP., U. S. A., V. CALHOUN, 516 U.S. 199 (1996) [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN DREDGING V. MILLER, 510 U.S. 443 (1994). [Syllabus]
	SISSON V. RUBY, 497 U.S. 358 (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.
	EXXON CORP. V. CENTRAL GULF LINES, INC., 500 U.S. 603 (1991) [Syllabus]
	STEWART V. DUTRA CONSTR. CO. [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. JAMES N. KIRBY,PTY LTD. [Syllabus]
	CHANDRIS, INC. V. LATSIS, 515 U.S. 347 (1995). [Syllabus]
	JEROME B. GRUBART, INC. V. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO., 513 U.S. 527 (1995). [Syllabus]
	MARTIN V. HUNTER'S LESSEE [Opinion]
	MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. WILANDER, 498 U.S. 337 (1991) [Syllabus]
	DOOLEY V. KOREAN AIR LINES CO., 524 U.S. 116 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. LEWIS & CLARK MARINE, INC. [Syllabus] 1. Does the district court abuse its discretion by dissolving the injuction against state court proceeding in a single claimant limitation of liability case (46 U.S.C. 181, et seq.) when the claimant guarantees the vessel owner's right to limitation by stipulating that the claim does not exceed the limitation fund; and 2. If so, must the injunction nonetheless be dissolved pursuant to the Saving To Suitors clause of 28 U.S.C. 1333(2)?"
	CALIFORNIA V. DEEP SEA RESEARCH, INC., 523 U.S. 491 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ZICHERMAN V. KOREAN AIRLINES CO. LTD., 516 U.S. 217 (1996) [Syllabus]
	HURON PORTLAND CEMENT CO. V. CITY OF DETROIT [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. LOCKE [Syllabus] Whether regulations adopted by the State of Washington governing staffing and operation of oceangoing oil tankers engaged in coastal and international commerce are preempted to the extent that they conflict with international obligations of the United States and Coast Guard regulations for such tankers promulgated pursuant to federal statutes and international conventions and agreements.
	HARBOR TUG & BARGE CO. V. PAPAI ET UX., 520 U.S. 548 (1997). [Syllabus]
	PATTON V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	DE JONGE V. OREGON [Opinion]
	VIMAR SEGUROS Y REASEGUROS, S. A. V. M/V SKY REEFER, 515 U.S. 528 (1995). [Syllabus]
	MCDERMOTT, INC. V. AMCLYDE, 511 U.S. 202 (1994) [Syllabus]
	CITY OF MILWAUKEE V. CEMENT DIV., NAT'L GYPSUM CO., 515 U.S. 189 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CHAO V. MALLARD BAY DRILLING, INC. [Syllabus] The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's jurisdiction to issue citations to respondent barge owner was not pre-empted by the Coast Guard under §4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; and the barge in question was a "workplace" covered by the Act.
	UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, 507 U.S. 529 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SINOCHEM INT L CO. V. MALAYSIA INT L SHIPPINGCORP. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY [Dissent]
	CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	GLIDDEN CO. V. ZDANOK [Dissent]
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Opinion]
	HURON PORTLAND CEMENT CO. V. CITY OF DETROIT [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LIBELLANTS AND CLAIMANTS OF THE SCHOONER AMISTAD [Opinion]
	CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. PETERS [Syllabus]
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	WORCESTER V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	MARTIN V. HUNTER'S LESSEE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Opinion]
	TALBOT V. JANSON [Syllabus]
	NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. []
	MARBURY V. MADISON [Opinion]
	PRIZE CASES [Dissent]
	CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HICKLIN V. ORBECK [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. LIBELLANTS AND CLAIMANTS OF THE SCHOONER AMISTAD [Syllabus]
	CHANDRIS, INC. V. LATSIS, 515 U.S. 347 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SISSON V. RUBY, 497 U.S. 358 (1990) [Syllabus]
	MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. WILANDER, 498 U.S. 337 (1991) [Syllabus]
	STEWART V. DUTRA CONSTR. CO. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LOCKE [Syllabus] Whether regulations adopted by the State of Washington governing staffing and operation of oceangoing oil tankers engaged in coastal and international commerce are preempted to the extent that they conflict with international obligations of the United States and Coast Guard regulations for such tankers promulgated pursuant to federal statutes and international conventions and agreements.
	FEDERAL MARITIME COMM’N V. SOUTH CAROLINAPORTS AUTHORITY [Syllabus] State sovereign immunity bars the Federal Maritime Commission from adjudicating a private party's complaint against a nonconsenting State.
	MILES V. APEX MARINE CORP.., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) [Syllabus]
	WRIGHT V. UNIVERSAL MARITIME SERVICE CORP. [Syllabus]
	YAMAHA MOTOR CORP., U. S. A., V. CALHOUN, 516 U.S. 199 (1996) [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN DREDGING V. MILLER, 510 U.S. 443 (1994). [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.
	EXXON CORP. V. CENTRAL GULF LINES, INC., 500 U.S. 603 (1991) [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. JAMES N. KIRBY,PTY LTD. [Syllabus]
	JEROME B. GRUBART, INC. V. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO., 513 U.S. 527 (1995). [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA V. MARYLAND [Syllabus]
	DOOLEY V. KOREAN AIR LINES CO., 524 U.S. 116 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA V. DEEP SEA RESEARCH, INC., 523 U.S. 491 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ALASKA, 503 U.S. 569 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ZICHERMAN V. KOREAN AIRLINES CO. LTD., 516 U.S. 217 (1996) [Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. LEWIS & CLARK MARINE, INC. [Syllabus] 1. Does the district court abuse its discretion by dissolving the injuction against state court proceeding in a single claimant limitation of liability case (46 U.S.C. 181, et seq.) when the claimant guarantees the vessel owner's right to limitation by stipulating that the claim does not exceed the limitation fund; and 2. If so, must the injunction nonetheless be dissolved pursuant to the Saving To Suitors clause of 28 U.S.C. 1333(2)?"
	HARBOR TUG & BARGE CO. V. PAPAI ET UX., 520 U.S. 548 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, 507 U.S. 529 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HOWLETT V. BIRKDALE SHIPPING CO., S. A., 512 U.S. 92 (1994). [Syllabus]
	SINOCHEM INT L CO. V. MALAYSIA INT L SHIPPINGCORP. [Syllabus]
	CITY OF MILWAUKEE V. CEMENT DIV., NAT'L GYPSUM CO., 515 U.S. 189 (1995). [Syllabus]
	NEW HAMPSHIRE V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	CHAO V. MALLARD BAY DRILLING, INC. [Syllabus] The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's jurisdiction to issue citations to respondent barge owner was not pre-empted by the Coast Guard under §4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; and the barge in question was a "workplace" covered by the Act.
	MCDERMOTT, INC. V. AMCLYDE, 511 U.S. 202 (1994) [Syllabus]
	VIMAR SEGUROS Y REASEGUROS, S. A. V. M/V SKY REEFER, 515 U.S. 528 (1995). [Syllabus]
	LOUISIANA V. MISSISSIPPI, 516 U.S. 22 (1995) [Syllabus]
	ALASKA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	GEORGE V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 497 U.S. 396 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]