Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query damages returned 206 results.

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

	STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.V. CAMPBELL [Syllabus] Whether the Utah Supreme Court, in direct contravention of this Court's decision in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S.559 (1996), and fundamental principles of due process, committed constitutional error by reinstating a $145 million punitive damage award that punishes out-of-state conduct, is 145 time greater than the compensatory damages in the case, and is based upon the defendant's alleged business practices nationwide over a twenty year period, which were unrelated and dissimilar to the conduct by the defendant that gave rise to the plaintiff's claims?
	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.
	DOE V. CHAO [Syllabus]
	O'GILVIE MINORS V. UNITED STATES, 519 U.S. 79 (1996) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WHITE MOUNTAINAPACHE TRIBE [Syllabus] Public Law 86-392 gives rise to Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims over respondent Tribe's suit for money damages against the United States for breach of a fiduciary duty to manage Fort Apache land and improvements held in trust for the Tribe but occupied by the Government.
	FELTNER V. COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC., 523 U.S. 340 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HONDA MOTOR CO. V. OBERG, 512 U.S. 415 (1994). [Syllabus]
	GEBSER V. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) [Syllabus]
	PHILIP MORRIS USA V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	COOK COUNTY V. UNITED STATES EX REL.CHANDLER [Syllabus] Local governments are "persons" amenable to qui tam actions under the federal False Claims Act.
	DOOLEY V. KOREAN AIR LINES CO., 524 U.S. 116 (1998) [Syllabus]
	PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. HASLIP, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) [Syllabus]
	KOONS BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC. V. NIGH [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. COLORADO [Syllabus]
	WEST V. GIBSON [Syllabus]
	COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. V. LEATHERMANTOOL GROUP, INC. [Syllabus] Courts of Appeals should apply a de novo, not an abuse-of-discretion, standard when reviewing district court determinations of the constitutionality of punitive damages awards.
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). [Syllabus]
	DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF ED. [Syllabus]
	KOLSTAD V. AMERICAN DENTAL ASSN. [Syllabus]
	TXO PRODUCTION CORP. V. ALLIANCE RESOURCES, 509 U.S. 443 (1993). [Syllabus]
	FARRAR V. HOBBY, 506 U.S. 103 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. NAVAJO NATION [Syllabus] Under United States v. Mitchell, 445 U. S. 535, and United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, the Navajo Tribe's claim for compensation from the Government based on the Interior Secretary's actions with respect to a coal lease between the Tribe and a private lessee fails, for it does not derive from any liability-imposing provision of the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 or its implementing regulations.
	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.
	LANDGRAF V. USI FILM PRODS., 511 U.S. 244 (1994). [Syllabus]
	MASTROBUONO V. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC., 514 U.S. 52 (1995). [Syllabus]
	MONTEREY V. DEL MONTE DUNES ATMONTEREY, LTD. [Syllabus]
	COHEN V. DE LA CRUZ, 523 U.S. 213 (1998) [Syllabus]
	JEFFERSON V. CITY OF TARRANT, ALA., 522 U.S. 75 (1997) [Syllabus]
	ZICHERMAN V. KOREAN AIRLINES CO. LTD., 516 U.S. 217 (1996) [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]
	COMMISSIONER V. SCHLEIER, 515 U.S. 323 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BOOTH V. CHURNER [Syllabus] Under 42 U. S. C. §1997e(a), an inmate seeking only money damages must complete any prison administrative process capable of addressing the inmate's complaint and providing some form of relief, even if the process does not make specific provision for monetary relief.
	EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES, LTD. V. TSUI YUAN TSENG [Syllabus]
	TEXACO, INC. V. HASBROUCK, 496 U.S. 543 (1990) [Syllabus]
	CIPOLLONE V. LIGGETT GROUP, 505 U.S. 504 (1992). [Syllabus]
	POLLARD V. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. [Syllabus] Front pay is not an element of compensatory damages under 42 U. S. C. §1981a and thus is not subject to the damages cap imposed by §1981a(b)(3).
	HUMANA INC. V. FORSYTH [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	PACIFICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. V. BOOK [Syllabus] Whether a district court must compel arbitration of a plaintiff's RICO claims under a valid arbitration agreement even if that agreement does not allow an arbitrator to award punitive damages, leaving to the arbitrator in the first instance the decision of what remedies are available to the RICO plaintiff in arbitration.
	HOLMES V. SECS. INVESTOR PROTECTION CORP., 503 U.S. 258 (1992). [Syllabus]
	LANE V. PENA, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., 518 U.S. 187 (1996). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BURKE, 504 U.S. 229 (1992). [Syllabus]
	METRO NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD CO. V. BUCKLEY, 521 U.S. 424 (1997) [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.
	KANSAS ET AL. V UTILICORP UNITED, INC., 497 U.S. 199 (1990) [Syllabus]
	WALLACE V. KATO [Syllabus]
	SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. BURR [Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). [Syllabus]
	F.D.I.C. V. MEYER, 510 U.S. 471 (1994). [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC., 524 U.S. 214 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	MILES V. APEX MARINE CORP.., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 751 V. BROWN GROUP, INC., 517 U.S. 544 (1996) [Syllabus]
	BP AMERICA PRODUCTION CO. V. BURTON [Syllabus]
	HECK V. HUMPHREY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). [Syllabus]
	KLEHR ET UX. V. A. O. SMITH CORP., 117 S.CT. 1984, 138 L.ED.2D 373 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MONTANA V. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, 523 U.S. 696 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WILKIE V. ROBBINS [Syllabus]
	COHEN V. COWLES MEDIA CO., 501 U.S. 663 (1991) [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF ARMY V. BLUE FOX, INC. [Syllabus]
	NEVADA DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES V. HIBBS [Syllabus] Whether 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2612 (a) (1) (C) exceeds Congress's enforcement authority under Section 5 of the Foruteenth Amendment.
	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.
	CLINTON V. JONES, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) [Syllabus]
	MCDERMOTT, INC. V. AMCLYDE, 511 U.S. 202 (1994) [Syllabus]
	ICC V. TRANSCON LINES, 513 U.S. 138 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CITY OF MILWAUKEE V. CEMENT DIV., NAT'L GYPSUM CO., 515 U.S. 189 (1995). [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF MONT. V. KURTH RANCH, 511 U.S. 767 (1994). [Syllabus]
	HADDLE V. GARRISON [Syllabus]
	MERTENS V. HEWITT ASSOCS., 508 U.S. 248 (1993). [Syllabus]
	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.
	GASPERINI V. CENTER FOR HUMANITIES, INC., 517 U.S. 1102 (1996). [Syllabus]
	RANCHO PALOS VERDES V. ABRAMS [Syllabus]
	CITY OF SHERRILL V. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF N. Y. [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE V. LANE [Syllabus] Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilitites Act of 1990 is a proper exercise of Congress' power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and thus validly abrogates state sovereign immunity?
	YAMAHA MOTOR CORP., U. S. A., V. CALHOUN, 516 U.S. 199 (1996) [Syllabus]
	SOSA V. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN [Syllabus] (1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350 creates a private cause of action for aliens for torts committed anywhere in violation of the law of nations or treaties of the United States or, instead, is a jurisdiction-granting provision that does not establish private rights of action? (2) Whether, to the extent that the Alien Tort Statute is not merely jurisdictional in nature, the challenged arrest in this case is actionable under the act? (3) Whether federal law enforcement officers, and agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration in particular, have authority to enforce a federal criminal statute that applies to acts perpetrated against a United States official in a foreign country by arresting an indicted criminal suspect on probable cause in a foreign country? (4) Whether an individual arrested in a foreign country may bring an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq., for false arrest, notwithstanding the FTCA's exclusion of "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country," 28 U.S.C. 2680(k), because the arrest was planned in the United States?
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WINSTAR CORP. ET AL., 518 U.S. 839 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 488 U.S. 1041 (1992). [Syllabus]
	KALINA V. FLETCHER, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. FANKELL, 520 U.S. 911 (1997). [Syllabus]
	JACKSON V. BIRMINGHAM BD. OF ED. [Syllabus]
	KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS [Syllabus] Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars a private suit in federal court against a State for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
	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.
	BURNS V. REED, 500 U.S. 478 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MEDIMMUNE, INC. V. GENENTECH, INC. [Syllabus]
	MERCK KGAA V. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES I, LTD. [Syllabus]
	RUHRGAS AG V. MARATHON OIL CO. [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. JAMES N. KIRBY,PTY LTD. [Syllabus]
	ELDER V. HOLLOWAY, 510 U.S. 510 (1994). [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.
	ANKENBRANDT V. RICHARDS, 504 U.S. 689 (1992). [Syllabus]
	BANK ONE CHICAGO, N. A. V. MIDWEST BANK & TRUST CO., 516 U.S. 264 (1996). [Syllabus]
	RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ANTOINE V. BYERS & ANDERSON, INC., 508 U.S. 429 (1993). [Syllabus]
	GLOBAL CROSSING TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. V.METROPHONES TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. [Syllabus]
	DESERT PALACE, INC. V. COSTA [Syllabus] 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that direct evidence is not required in Title VII cases to trigger the application of the mixed-motive analysis set out in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins? 2. What are the appropriate standards for lower courts to follow in making a direct evidence determination in mixed-motive cases under Title VII?
	UNITED STATES V. HATTER [Syllabus] The judgment below is reversed insofar as the Federal Circuit found that the application of Medicare taxes to the salaries of federal judges taking office before 1983 violated the Compensation Clause, but affirmed insofar as that court found the application of Social Security taxes to the salaries of judges taking office before 1984 unconstitutional; a 1984 salary increase received by federal judges did not cure the latter violation.
	CRAWFORD-EL V. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) [Syllabus]
	KAWAAUHAU V. GEIGER, 523 U.S. 57 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON N. & S. F. R. CO. V. WHITE [Syllabus]
	SARATOGA FISHING CO. V. J. M. MARTINAC & CO., 520 U.S. 875 (1997) [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA.V. GARRETT [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars suits by private citizens in federal court under the Americans with Disabilities Act against non-consenting states. 2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court by private citizens under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 against non-consenting states."
	VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. REEDER-SIMCO GMC, INC. [Syllabus]
	RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997). [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA BANKSHARES, INC. V. SANDBERG, 501 U.S. 1083 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HAZEN PAPER V. BIGGINS, 507 U.S. 604 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MCNEIL V. UNITED STATES, 508 U.S. 106 (1993). [Syllabus]
	CONN V. GABBERT [Syllabus]
	GRUPO MEXICANO DE DESARROLLO, S. A. V. ALLIANCE BOND FUND, INC. [Syllabus]
	INGERSOLL-RAND CO. V. MCCLENDON, 498 U.S. 133 (1990) [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL GREEN CO. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that the Flood Control Act of 1928 immunizes Respondent from his suit?"
	[Syllabus]
	SISSON V. RUBY, 497 U.S. 358 (1990) [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.
	STATE OIL CO. V. KHAN, 522 U.S. 3 (1997) [Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. PRO FOOTBALL, INC.., 518 U.S. 231 (1996) [Syllabus]
	JAFFEE V. REDMOND, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) [Syllabus]
	BUCKMAN CO. V. PLAINTIFFS’ LEGAL COMM. [Syllabus] Whether federal law preempts state-law tort claims alleging fraud on the Food and Drug Administration during the regulatory process for marketing clearance applicable to certain devices.
	CHANDRIS, INC. V. LATSIS, 515 U.S. 347 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL BANK OF DENVER V. FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF DENVER, 114 S. CT. 1439, (1994) [Syllabus]
	HERCULES INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 417 (1996). [Syllabus]
	SIEGERT V. GILLEY, 500 U.S. 226 (1991) [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.
	ATHERTON V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 519 U.S. 213 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MEDTRONIC, INC. V. LOHR ET VIR, 518 U.S. 470 (1996). [Syllabus]
	BOGAN V. SCOTT-HARRIS, 523 U.S. 44 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LOCKE V. DAVEY [Syllabus] The Washington Constitution provides that no public money shall be appropriated or applied to religious instruction. Following this constitutional command, Washington does not grant college scholarships to otherwise eligible students who are pursuing a degree in theology. Does the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment require the state to fund religious instruction, if it provides college scholarships for secular instruction?
	MCCARTHY V. BRONSON, 500 U.S. 136 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MILLER V. FRENCH [Syllabus] The question presented is whether Section 3626(e) violates separation-of-powers principles by legislatively specifying a rule of decision or legislatively annulling a judgment."
	MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT V. EMPLOYERS INS. OF WAUSAU, 508 U.S. 286 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BEGGERLY, 524 U.S. 38 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MARTIN V. FRANKLIN CAPITAL CORP. [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORPORATION V. HOOD [Syllabus]
	RAGSDALE V. WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC. [Syllabus] A Labor Department regulation requiring an employer to grant an additional 12 weeks of leave to an employee who has not been informed that a previous absence would be counted as part of the 12 weeks of leave guaranteed by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 is contrary to the Act and beyond the Labor Secretary's authority.
	REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA V. DOE, 519 U.S. 425 (1997). [Syllabus]
	METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC. V.GROKSTER, LTD. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLA. V. LEAVITT [Syllabus]
	FARMER V. BRENNAN, 511 U.S. 825 (1994). [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?"
	SCHEIDLER V. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FORWOMEN, INC. [Syllabus] Because all of the predicate acts supporting the jury's finding of a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act must be reversed, the Seventh Circuit's decision that petitioner protesters' activities at abortion clinics violated RICO must also be reversed.
	TEXTRON LYCOMING RECIPROCATING ENGINE DIV., AVCO CORP. V. AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, 523 U.S. 653 (1998) [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.
	SWINT V. CHAMBERS COUNTY COMM'N, 514 U.S. 35 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BENEFICIAL NAT. BANK V. ANDERSON [Syllabus] This Court has long held that section 30 of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 85-86, creates an exclusive federal cause of action and an exclusive federal remedy for usury claims by borrowers against national banks, preempting state law under the doctrine of ordinary preemption. Borrowers filed this case against a national bank in state court, claiming violation of state usury law, and the national bank removed the case to federal district court, where a motion to remand was denied. On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ordered the district court to remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and explicitly disagreed with decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit holding that section 30 completely preempts state usury claims against national banks and thus permits removal of cases asserting state usury laws against them. The question presented is:
	VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES V.UNITED STATES EX REL. STEVENS [Syllabus] 1. Whether a State is a ""person"" subject to liability under 31 U.S.C. 3729(a) of the False Claims Act? 2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment precludes a private relator from commencing and prosecuting a False Claims Act suit against an unconsenting State?
	BUCKLEY V. FITZSIMMONS, 509 U.S. 259 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MEGHRIG ET AL. V. KFC WESTERN, INC., 516 U.S. 479 (1996). [Syllabus]
	NYNEX CORP. V. DISCON, INC. [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.
	CHAMBERS V. NASCO, INC., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP. [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA [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.
	GRATZ V. BOLLINGER [Syllabus] 1. Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981?
	LEDBETTER V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. [Syllabus]
	WILSON V. LAYNE [Syllabus]
	NO. 96-1671 RAINES V. BYRD, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) [Syllabus]
	ALEXANDER V. SANDOVAL [Syllabus] There is no private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
	BECK V. PRUPIS [Syllabus] Whether an employee who is terminated for both blowing the whistle on and refusing to participate in a pattern of predicated acts of racketeering forbidden by the Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act (""RICO""), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., may assert a civil RICO conspiracy claim, where he has been injured by an overt act in furtherance of the RICO conspiracy, which overt act is not, itself, a predicate act of racketeering (a question as to which the circuit courts of appeal are in direct conflict).
	BARTNICKI V. VOPPER [Syllabus] Respondent news media's disclosure of the contents of an illegally intercepted cell phone conversation about a public issue is protected by the First Amendment.
	AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC. V. WINDSOR, 117 S.CT. 2231, 138 L.ED.2D 689 (1997). [Syllabus]
	WEISGRAM  V.  MARLEY CO. [Syllabus] 1. If the District Court erred in admitting the testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts and the relief to be awarded is a new trial, is the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's decision in conflict with its own precedent and decisions of other United States Courts of Appeal if it granted judgment as a matter of law to Marley Company after excising portions of Plaintiffs' experts' testimony?
	BOARD OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BRYAN COUNTY, OKLAHOMA V. BROWN, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) [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.
	MURPHY BROTHERS, INC. V. MICHETTI PIPESTRINGING, INC. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GAUBERT, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. TASINI [Syllabus] Where freelance authors' articles in print periodicals were republished in electronic databases without the authors' consent, the copying was not authorized by the reproduction privilege afforded collective works publishers under §201(c) of the Copyright Act.
	LV. DEWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. [Syllabus]
	BREUER V. JIM’S CONCRETE OF BREVARD, INC. [Syllabus] Whether an action commenced in state court under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq., (theFLSA), can be removed by the defendant to a federal district court, even though the FLSA expressly provides that the case can be maintained in state court? Whether the Eleventh Circuit's Interpretation of the word maintained as used in the jurisdictional provisions of the FLSA conflicts with this Court's pronounced definition of the word maintain' to be used when construing federal statutes? When the conflict, disparity and deadlock of opinion between the Eleventh and First Circuits and the Eighth Circuit, and between dozens of district courts around the country, regarding whether FLSA actions commenced in state court are removable to federal court, warrants that this Court, as suggested by the Eleventh Circuit in its opinion below, grant this petition to resolve the question once and for all in order to bring uniformity to the federal courts, and eliminate widespread disparity between litigants in our federal system.
	GONZAGA UNIV. V. DOE [Syllabus] Respondent's action is foreclosed because the relevant provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 create no personal rights to enforce under 42 U. S. C. §1983.
	[Syllabus]
	ROTELLA V. WOOD [Syllabus] In calculating the statute of limitations for a civil RICO claim, does the cause of action accrue when the injury alone happens, or when the plaintiff has both suffered the injury and discovered that it results from a pattern of RICO activity?
	SPECTRUM SPORTS V. MCQUILLAN, 506 U.S. 447 (1993). [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN DREDGING V. MILLER, 510 U.S. 443 (1994). [Syllabus]
	CHAVEZ V. MARTINEZ [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel Correctly characterized the Supreme Court's Fifth Amendment discussion in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), as non-binding dicta and thereby ignored its holding favorable to petitioner. 2. Whether a violation of the Fifth Amendment, potentially resulting in an award of civil damages, occurs at the time of the purported coercive the constitutionally violative statement in a criminal proceeding. 3. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel correctly held that the conduct of this investigating officer was so offensive as to deny him qualified immunity.
	LAPIDES V. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. SYSTEMOF GA. [Syllabus] A State waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity when it removes a case from state court to federal court.
	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.
	CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC V. BILLING [Syllabus]
	EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. ALLAPATTAH SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	CONNECTICUT V. DOEHR, 501 U.S. 1 (1991) [Syllabus]
	NELSON V. CAMPBELL [Syllabus] Whether a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 by a death-sentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the procedures for carrying out the execution, is properly recharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254?
	[Syllabus]
	CHRISTOPHER V. HARBURY [Syllabus] Respondent did not state an actionable claim when she alleged that she was denied access to courts by Government officials, who intentionally deceived her in concealing information that her husband had been tortured and killed by the Guatemalan army.
	[Syllabus]
	BEHRENS V. PELLETIER, 516 U.S. 299 (1996). [Syllabus]
	EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. V. NEZTSOSIE [Syllabus]
	REITER V. COOPER, 507 U.S. 258 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SAUDI ARABIA V. NELSON, 507 U.S. 349 (1993). [Syllabus]
	GEIER V. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. [Syllabus] 1. Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred by holding, in direct conflict with five state courts of last resort, that an automobile manufacturer's compliance with a federal motor vehicle safety standard that permits, but does not require, installation of airbags in passenger vehicles preempts state common law claims that an automobile was defectively designed because it lacked an airbag? 2. Whether the D.C. Circuit erred by holding that, because this Court engaged in implied preemption analysis in Freightliner Corp. V. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280 (1995), the lower courts are free to disregard the limitations on implied preemption most recently emphasized in Cipollone V. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992), to find that a Federal motor vehicle safety standard promulgated pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381-1431, impliedly preempts common law claims, even thought the Act expressly provides that ""compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard … does not exempt any person from any liability under common law''?
	[Syllabus]
	BAKER BY THOMAS V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SPENCER V. KEMNA, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. SHANKLIN [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals properly applied this Court's decision in CSX Transportation, Inc. V. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993), when it held, in acknowledged conflict with decisions of three other circuits, that claims of negligence based on inadeguate warning devices at a railway grade crossing are not preempted even through the warning devices at the crossing were installed with federal funds under a project approved by the federal government."
	KIRCHER V. PUTNAM FUNDS TRUST [Syllabus]
	TRW INC. V. ANDREWS [Syllabus] The Fair Credit Reporting Act's statute of limitations-which requires an action to be brought "within two years from the date on which the liability arises, except that where a defendant has . . . willfully misrepresented any information required . . . to be disclosed to [the plaintiff] and the information . . . is material to [a claim under the Act], the action may be brought at any time within two years after [the plaintiff's] discovery . . . of the misrepresentation"-is not governed by a general rule that the limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know that she was injured.