skip navigation


Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Search for:
All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

Your query products liability returned 23 results.

1000 CONCRETE PIPE & PRODUCTS OF CAL. V. CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST, 508 U.S. 602 (1993)
[Syllabus]
705 REEVES V. SANDERSON PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC.
[Syllabus]
1. Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, is direct evidence of discriminatory intent required to avoid judgment as a matter of law for the employer? 2. In determining whether to grant judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, should a District Judge weigh all of the evidence or consider only the evidence favoring the non-movant? 3. Whether the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 is the same as the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50?"
635 AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC. V. WINDSOR, 117 S.CT. 2231, 138 L.ED.2D 689 (1997).
[Syllabus]
1000 CONCRETE PIPE & PRODUCTS OF CAL. V. CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST, 508 U.S. 602 (1993)
[Syllabus]
762 REEVES V. SANDERSON PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC.
[Syllabus]
1. Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, is direct evidence of discriminatory intent required to avoid judgment as a matter of law for the employer? 2. In determining whether to grant judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, should a District Judge weigh all of the evidence or consider only the evidence favoring the non-movant? 3. Whether the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 is the same as the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50?"
762 EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998)
[Syllabus]
596 SARATOGA FISHING CO. V. J. M. MARTINAC & CO., 520 U.S. 875 (1997)
[Syllabus]
569 AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC. V. WINDSOR, 117 S.CT. 2231, 138 L.ED.2D 689 (1997).
[Syllabus]
545 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."
486 ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP.
[Syllabus]
407 BAKER BY THOMAS V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 522 U.S. 222 (1998)
[Syllabus]
351 OSBORN V. HALEY
[Syllabus]
351 LANDGRAF V. USI FILM PRODS., 511 U.S. 244 (1994).
[Syllabus]
351 EASTMAN KODAK V. IMAGE TECHNICAL SERVS., 504 U.S. 451 (1992).
[Syllabus]
351 RIEGEL V. MEDTRONIC, INC.
[Syllabus]
351 BATES V. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC
[Syllabus]
272 ROWE V. NEW HAMPSHIRE MOTOR TRANSP. ASSN.
[Syllabus]
272 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?
272 HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 117 S.CT. 1871, 138 L.ED.2D 135 (1997).
[Syllabus]
272 BROOKE GROUP LTD. V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., 509 U.S. 209 (1993).
[Syllabus]
272 EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH
[Syllabus]
272 COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK V. FLORIDA PREPAIDPOSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSE BD.
[Syllabus]
272 EDELMAN V. LYNCHBURG COLLEGE
[Syllabus]
An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation permitting an otherwise timely filer of a charge alleging job discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to verify the charge after the time for filing it has expired is an unassailable interpretation of §706 of that Act and is therefore valid.
272 FERNANDEZ-VARGAS V. GONZALES
[Syllabus]
272 BABBITT V. SWEET HOME CHAPT. COMMS. FOR ORE., 515 U.S. 687 (1995).
[Syllabus]
272
[Syllabus]