Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query fines returned 14 results.

	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF ENERGY V. OHIO, 503 U.S. 607 (1992). [Syllabus]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UAW V. BAGWELL, 512 U.S. 821 (1994). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) [Syllabus]
	AUSTIN V. UNITED STATES, 509 U.S. 602 (1993). [Syllabus]
	TXO PRODUCTION CORP. V. ALLIANCE RESOURCES, 509 U.S. 443 (1993). [Syllabus]
	ALEXANDER V. UNITED STATES, 509 U.S. 544 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. URSERY, 518 U.S. 267 (1996). [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.
	O'GILVIE MINORS V. UNITED STATES, 519 U.S. 79 (1996) [Syllabus]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). [Syllabus]
	HERCULES INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 417 (1996). [Syllabus]
	BP AMERICA PRODUCTION CO. V. BURTON [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF MONT. V. KURTH RANCH, 511 U.S. 767 (1994). [Syllabus]
	VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. LAW OFFICESOF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP [Syllabus] 1. Whether allegations of inadequacies in a monopolist's affirmative assistance to its rivals, including resellers—as newly provided by incumbent local telephone companies under the Telecommunications Act of 1996—state a claim for unlawful unilateral predatory conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act 2. Whether antitrust and Communications Act standing extends to indirect purchasers, I.e., the customers of the defendant's customer, asserting injuries wholly derivative of the direct customer's injury, even when invoking only the direct customer's legal rights.