Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query drugs returned 52 results.

	BOLGER V. YOUNGS DRUGS PRODS. CORP. [Syllabus]
	BOLGER V. YOUNGS DRUGS PRODS. CORP. [Opinion]
	BOLGER V. YOUNGS DRUGS PRODS. CORP. [Concurrence]
	BOLGER V. YOUNGS DRUGS PRODS. CORP. [Concurrence]
	THOMPSON V. WESTERN STATES MEDICAL CENTER [Syllabus] The prohibitions on soliciting prescriptions for, and advertising, compounded drugs that are set forth in the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 amount to unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech violative of the First Amendment.
	WATSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	SELL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting petitioner's argument that allowing the government to administer antipsychotic medication against his will solely to render him competent to stand trial for non-violent offenses would violate his rights under the First Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
	CHAPMAN V. UNITED STATES, 500 U.S. 453 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. OAKLAND CANNABISBUYERS’ COOPERATIVE [Syllabus] There is no medical necessity exception to the Controlled Substances Act's prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing marijuana.
	BAZE V. REES [Syllabus]
	ELI LILLY & CO. V. MEDTRONIC, INC., 496 U.S. 661 (1990) [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE CTY. V. EARLS [Syllabus] Petitioner school district's drug testing policy for students participating in extracurricular activities is a reasonable means of furthering the district's important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren and does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
	MERCK KGAA V. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES I, LTD. [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 511 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BAILEY V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 137 (1996). [Syllabus]
	MUSCARELLO V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 125 (1998) [Syllabus]
	EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORP. V. MINE WORKERS [Syllabus] 1. Whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, there is a well defined and dominant public policy that prohibits enforcement of arbitration awards requiring reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of employees who test positive for illegal drugs, or whether, as the Second, Ninth, Tenth, and now Fourth Circuits have held, no such policy exists and courts must therefore uphold reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of those who test positive for illegal drugs. 2. Whether, as the Fourth, Ninth, and District of Columbia have held, an arbitration award should be vacated on public policy grounds only when the award itself violates positive law or requires unlawful conduct by the employer, or whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, such an award need not violate positive law to violate public policy---a question on which the Court granted certiorari, but did not reach, in United Paperwork's International Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987)."
	FLORIDA V. BOSTICK, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MARYLAND V. PRINGLE [Syllabus] Where drugs and a roll of cash are found in the passenger compartment of a car with multiple occupants, and all deny ownership, does the Fourth Amendment prohibit a police officer form arresting the occupants of the car?
	GALL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BANKS [Syllabus] Whether law enforcement officers executing a warrant to search for illegal drugs violated the Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. 3109, thereby requiring suppression of evidence, when they forcibly entered a small apartment in the middle of the afternoon 15-20 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence.
	VERNONIA SCH. DIST. 47J V. ACTON, 515 U.S. 646 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) [Syllabus]
	PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MFRS. OFAMERICA V. WALSH [Syllabus] 1. Whether the federal Medicaid statue, 42 U. S. C. 1396 et seq., allows a state to use authority under that statute to compel drug manufacturers to subsidize price discounts on prescription drugs for non-Medicaid populations? 2. Whether a state may circumvent the Commerce Clause prohibition against regulating or taxing wholly out of state transactions by requiring an out-of-state manufacturer, which sells it products to wholesalers outside the state, to pay the state each time one of its products is subsequently sold by a retailer within the state?
	WILLIAMSON V. UNITED STATES, 512 U.S. 594 (1994). [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. UNITED STATES, 508 U.S. 223 (1993). [Syllabus]
	POSTERS `N' THINGS, LTD. V. UNITED STATES, 511 U.S. 513 (1994). [Syllabus]
	TOUBY V. UNITED STATES, 500 U.S. 160 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS V. MCARTHUR [Syllabus] Whether it is constitutionally reasonable for police officers to secure a residence from the outside, and prohibit the occupant's entry into that residence for a short time while they obtain a search warrant based on probable cause, when this Court has suggested that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment in Segura v. United States 468 U.S. 796, 82 L.Ed.2d 599, 104 S.Ct. 3380 (1984) and other courts have found similar behavior consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and Segura."
	WITTE V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 389 (1995). [Syllabus]
	RIGGINS V. NEVADA, 504 U.S. 127 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FERGUSON V. CHARLESTON [Syllabus] A state hospital's performance of drug tests to obtain evidence of maternity patients' cocaine use for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patients have not consented to the procedure; the interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter such use cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant.
	RICHARDS V. WISCONSIN, 520 U.S. 385 (1997). [Syllabus]
	BURGESS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MINNESOTA V. CARTER, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WYOMING V. HOUGHTON [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. DRAYTON [Syllabus] The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to advise bus passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse consent to searches.
	UNITED STATES V. FLORES-MONTANO [Syllabus] Whether, under the 4th Amendment, customs officers at the international border must have reasonable suspicion in order to remove, disassemble, and search a vehicle's gas tank for contraband?
	DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF MONT. V. KURTH RANCH, 511 U.S. 767 (1994). [Syllabus]
	STAPLES V. UNITED STATES, 511 U.S. 600 (1994). [Syllabus]
	VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK V. QUILL, 117 S.CT. 2293, 138 L.ED.2D (1997) [Syllabus]
	OHIO V. ROBINETTE, 519 U.S. 33 (1996) [Syllabus]
	BOND V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether a search occurs when a law enforcement officer manipulates a bus passenger's personal carry-on luggage to determine its contents."
	[Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS V. RODRIGUEZ, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. DOMINGUEZ BENITEZ [Syllabus] Whether, in order to show that a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 constitutes reversible plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty if the violation had not occurred?
	THORNTON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), which established a bright-line rule authorizing a search of a car's passenger compartment incident to a contemporaneous lawful arrest of an occupant therein, also authorizes a warrantless search of a car when the arrestee was not in the car when the police initiated contact with him or within reaching distance of the car at the time of the arrest?
	INDIANAPOLIS  V.  EDMOND [Syllabus] Whether checkpoints at which law enforcement officers briefly stop vehicular traffic, check motorists' licenses and vehicle registrations, look for signs of impairment, and walk a ""narcotics detection"" dog around the exterior of each stopped automobile are unlawful under the Fourth Amendment."
	GONZALES V. RAICH [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES JAMES DANIEL GOOD REAL PROPERTY, 510 U.S. 43 (1993). [Syllabus]
	FDA V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. [Syllabus] Whether, given FDA's findings, tobacco products are subject to regulation under the Act as ""drugs"" and ""devices.
	UNITED STATES V. GRANDERSON, 511 U.S. 39 (1994). [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA V. ACEVEDO, 498 U.S. 807 (1990) [Syllabus]