Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query trust estate returned 17 results.

	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Syllabus]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Syllabus]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BANK OF AMERICA NAT. TRUST AND SAV. ASSN. V.203 NORTH LASALLE STREET PARTNERSHIP [Syllabus]
	C.I.R. V. ESTATE OF HUBERT, 520 U.S. 93 (1997) [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.
	UNITED STATES V. IRVINE, 511 U.S. 224 (1994). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BANK OF AMERICA NAT. TRUST AND SAV. ASSN. V.203 NORTH LASALLE STREET PARTNERSHIP [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTHSERVS. V. GUARDIANSHIP ESTATE OF KEFFELER [Syllabus] Washington State's use of respondent foster children's Social Security benefits to reimburse the State for expenses in caring for respondents did not violate 42 U. S. C. §407(a).
	PATTERSON V. SHUMATE, 504 U.S. 753 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ROUSEY V. JACOWAY [Syllabus]
	AMOCO PRODUCTION CO. V. SOUTHERN UTE TRIBE [Syllabus]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	RIVET V. REGIONS BANK OF LA., 522 U.S. 470 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. LEGAL FOUNDATION OF WASH. [Syllabus] Interest earned on client funds deposited in IOLTA accounts that is transferred to a different owner for a legitimate public use may constitute a per se taking requiring "just compensation" to the client under the Fifth Amendment; but because such compensation is measured by the owner's pecuniary interest, which is zero whenever Washington's IOLTA law is obeyed, there is no violation of the Just Compensation Clause here.
	TENNESSEE STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORPORATION V. HOOD [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)."
	HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. V. JACOBSON [Syllabus]
	JAFFEE V. REDMOND, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) [Syllabus]
	BARNHILL V. JOHNSON, 503 U.S. 393 (1992). [Syllabus]