Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query eleventh and amendment returned 52 results.

	[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.
	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."
	CALIFORNIA V. DEEP SEA RESEARCH, INC., 523 U.S. 491 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WISCONSIN DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. SCHACHT, 524 U.S. 381 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	RAYGOR V. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF MINN. [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §1367(d), which purports to toll the statute of limitations for supplemental state-law claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed, does not apply to claims against nonconsenting state defendants that are dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds.
	P.R. AQUEDUCT & SEWER AUTH. V. METCALF & EDDY, INC., 506 U.S. 139 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	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.
	HOPE V. PELZER [Syllabus] Respondent Alabama prison guards were not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment phase where reasonable officers would have known that using a hitching post to punish a prisoner under the circumstances alleged by petitioner inmate violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
	UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	CHANDLER V. MILLER, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) [Syllabus]
	HESS V. PORT AUTH.. TRANS-HUDSON CORP., 115 S. CT. 394, 130 L. ED. 2D 245 (1994) [Syllabus]
	FREW V. HAWKINS [Syllabus] This case involves the Early and Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) component of the Medicaid Act. U.S.C. 1396a(a)(43);139d®. Another case pending before this Court also involves EPSDT. Haveman v. Westside Mothers, No.02-277. If the Court grants a writ of certiorari in that case to address questions related to this case, the Petitioner-children ask the Court to suspend this case pending resolution of the other. I. Do State officials waive Eleventh Amendment immunity by urging the district court to adopt a consent decree when the decree is based on federal law and specifically provides for the district court's ongoing supervision of the official's decree compliance? 2. Does the Eleventh Amendment bar a district court from enforcing a consent decree entered into by state officials unless the plaintiffs show that the decree violation is also a violation of a federal right remediable under 1983? 3. Does State officials' failure to provide services required by the Medicaid Act's EPSDT provisions violate right that Medicaid recipients may enforce pursuant to 42 U.S C.§ 1983? See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(43); 1396d®.
	BLATCHFORD V. NATIVE VILLAGE OF NOATAK, 501 U.S. 775 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SCOTT V. HARRIS [Syllabus]
	STINSON V. UNITED STATES, 508 U.S. 36 (1993). [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?
	EDENFIELD V. FANE, 507 U.S. 761 (1993). [Syllabus]
	[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.
	[Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORPORATION V. HOOD [Syllabus]
	IDAHO V. COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE OF IDAHO, 117 S.CT. 2028, 138 L.ED.2D 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MURPHY BROTHERS, INC. V. MICHETTI PIPESTRINGING, INC. [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?
	GARNER  V.  JONES [Syllabus] 1. Whether the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution bars the State from applying its amended regulation governing the reconsideration schedule for life-sentenced inmates who have been denied parole, when the amendment has no effect on the sentence imposed, the substantive formula for the consideration of the prisoner for parole, or the determination of the prisoner's eligibility for parole, or whether the change creates only ""the most speculative and attentuated possibility of producing the prohibited effect of increasing the measure of punishment."" 2. Whether the decision below conflicts with the decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals and the appellate courts of the several states as to the meaning and import of this Court's decisions in California Dep't of Corrections V. Morales and Lynce v. Mathis.
	REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA V. DOE, 519 U.S. 425 (1997). [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.
	NEDER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	SOLE V. WYNER [Syllabus]
	JAMES V. UNITED STATES [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.
	FLORIDA BAR V. WENT FOR IT, INC., 515 U.S. 618 (1995). [Syllabus]
	MCNARY V. HAITIAN REFUGEE CENTER, INC., 498 U.S. 479 (1991) [Syllabus]
	NORTHEASTERN FLA. CHAPTER OF THE ASSOCIATED GEN. CONTRACTORS V. CITY OF [Syllabus]
	DOGGETT V. UNITED STATES, 505 U.S. 647 (1992). [Syllabus]
	CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI BABALU AYE V. CITY OF HIALEAH, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MILLER V. JOHNSON, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) [Syllabus]
	ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CALDERON V. ASHMUS, 523 U.S. 740 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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?
	VERIZON MD. INC. V. PUBLIC SERV. COMM’N OF MD. [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §1331 provides a basis for federal-court jurisdiction over a telecommunication carrier's claim that a state public utility commission's order requiring reciprocal compensation for telephone calls to Internet service providers is pre-empted by federal law; the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, permits the suit to go forward against the state commissioners in their official capacities.
	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.
	SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. ALABAMA [Syllabus]
	WILL V. HALLOCK [Syllabus]
	LANE V. PENA, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., 518 U.S. 187 (1996). [Syllabus]
	RENO V. CONDON [Syllabus] Whether the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. 2721-2725, contravenes constitutional principles of federalism.
	AIR LINE PILOTS V. MILLER, 523 U.S. 866 (1998) [Syllabus]