Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query insurance returned 79 results.

	ATHERTON V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 519 U.S. 213 (1997). [Syllabus]
	PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. HASLIP, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) [Syllabus]
	WENGLER V. DRUGGISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. [Concurrence]
	WENGLER V. DRUGGISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. [Opinion]
	WENGLER V. DRUGGISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. [Syllabus]
	UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. WARD [Syllabus]
	HUMANA INC. V. FORSYTH [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN INS. ASSN. V. GARAMENDI [Syllabus] California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (HVIRA) requires California insurers to provide extensive information regarding every insurance policy issued in Nazi dominated Europe between 1920 and 1945 by any insurer with which the California insurer now has a legal relationship. The district court enjoined enforcement of the Act on three constitutional grounds: interference with the federal government's power over foreign affairs, due process, and the Foreign Commerce Clause. Over the objections of the U.S. government and affected foreign governments, and in direct conflict with Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Gallagher, 267 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit reversed and upheld the HVIRA in all respects. 1. Whether the HVIRA, which the U.S. government has called an actual interference with U.S. foreign policy, and which affected foreign governments have protested as inconsistent with international agreements, violates the foreign affairs doctrine of Zschering v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968). 2. Whether the HVIRA, which attempts to regulate insurance transactions that occurred overseas between foreign parties more than half a century ago, exceeds California's legislative jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. 3. Whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1011-1015, insulates the HVIRA form review under the Foreign Commerce Clause.
	BARNETT BANK OF MARION COUNTY, N. A. V. NELSON, FLORIDA INS. COMM'R, 517 U.S. 25 (1996) [Syllabus]
	KENTUCKY ASSN. OF HEALTH PLANS, INC. V. MILLER [Syllabus] Kentucky's "Any Willing Provider" statutes are "law[s] . . . which regulat[e] insurance" under 29 U. S. C. §1144(b)(2)(A) and are therefore saved from pre-emption by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
	RUSH PRUDENTIAL HMO, INC. V. MORAN [Syllabus] The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 does not preempt §4-10 of the Illinois Health Maintenance Organization Act-which provides recipients of health coverage by an HMO with a right to independent medical review of certain benefit denials-as applied to health benefits provided by an HMO under contract with an employee welfare benefit plan.
	NATIONSBANK OF N.C. V. VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE INS. CO., 513 U.S. 251 (1995). [Syllabus]
	FMC CORP. V. HOLLIDAY, 498 U.S. 52 (1990) [Syllabus]
	ATHERTON V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 519 U.S. 213 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF TREASURY V. FABE, 508 U.S. 491 (1993). [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD PLANS V. TRAVELERS, 514 U.S. 645 (1995) [Syllabus]
	ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP. [Syllabus]
	PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. HASLIP, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. V. ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO. [Syllabus]
	SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. BURR [Syllabus]
	QUACKENBUSH, CAL. INS. COMM'R, ET AL. V. ALLSTATE INS. CO., 517 U.S. 706 (1996) [Syllabus]
	JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS. V. HARRIS TRUST & SAV. BANK, 510 U.S. 86 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INS. CO. V. UNIONPLANTERS BANK, N. A. [Syllabus] Does a postpetition administrative creditor in a bankruptcy case have standing under 11 U.S.C. 506© to seek payment of its administrative claim from property of the bankruptcy estate that is encumbered by a secured creditor's lien?"
	GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS. CO. V. KNUDSON [Syllabus] Because petitioners are seeking legal relief-the imposition of personal liability on respondents for a contractual obligation to pay money-this action is not authorized by §502(a)(3) of ERISA, which prescribes a suit for "appropriate equitable relief."
	ATLANTIC MUT. INS. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 523 U.S. 382 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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?
	AMERICAN MFRS. MUT. INS. CO. V. SULLIVAN [Syllabus]
	HOWSAM V. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC. [Syllabus] A National Association of Securities Dealers arbitrator, rather than a court, should apply the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure's time limit rule to a client's dispute with a broker.
	HARTFORD FIRE INS. V. CALIFORNIA, 509 U.S. 764 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES NAT'L BANK OF ORE. V. INDEPENDENT INS. AGENTS, 508 U.S. 439 (1993) [Syllabus]
	EGELHOFF V. EGELHOFF [Syllabus] The Washington statute that provides that the designation of a spouse as the beneficiary of a nonprobate asset is revoked automatically upon divorce has a connection with ERISA plans and is therefore expressly pre-empted by ERISA.
	PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. V. THE LTV CORP., 496 U.S. 633 (1990) [Syllabus]
	NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INS. V. DARDEN, 503 U.S. 318 (1992). [Syllabus]
	MID-CON FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. V. MICHIGAN PUB.SERV. COMM’N [Syllabus]
	WATTERS V. WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. [Syllabus]
	DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. GREATER WASHINGTON BD. OF TRADE, 506 U.S. 125 (1992). [Syllabus]
	SULLIVAN V. STROOP, 496 U.S. 478 (1990) [Syllabus]
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether , in light of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and the interpretive rule that constitutionally doubtful constructions should be avoided, see DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988), Section 844(I) applies to the arson of a private residence: and if so, whether its application to the private residence in the present case is constitutional."
	CALIFORNIA V. DEEP SEA RESEARCH, INC., 523 U.S. 491 (1998) [Syllabus]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	KAWAAUHAU V. GEIGER, 523 U.S. 57 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. TICOR TITLE INS., 504 U.S. 621 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GAUBERT, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) [Syllabus]
	RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997). [Syllabus]
	F.D.I.C. V. MEYER, 510 U.S. 471 (1994). [Syllabus]
	GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP.-ALA. V. RANDOLPH [Syllabus] 1. Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that an order compelling arbitration and dismissing a lawsuit's underlying claims is a ""final decision with respect to an arbitration"" appealable under 9 U.S.C. 16 (a) (3). 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that arbitration provision that was ""silent"" on the issue of costs and fees was unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act because the risk that plaintiff "" be required to bear unknown costs and fees potentially undermined her ability to vindicate statutory rights."
	FISCHER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether Medicare payments to a hospital for services provided to Medicare patients qualify as ""benefits"" to meet the jurisdictional requirements of Title 18 U.S.C. 666 so as to federalize crimes of theft, embezzlement, and bribery involving the hospital?"
	BARNHART V. THOMAS [Syllabus] Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act define disability as the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act further provides that a claimant shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(B). Under the Act, work which exists in the national economy means work which exists in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions in the country. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(B). The question presented is: Whether the Commissioner of Social Security may determine that a claimant is not disabled within the meaning of the Act because the claimant remains physically and mentally able to do her previous work, without considering whether that particular job exists in significant numbers in the national economy.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	TOIBB V. RADLOFF, 501 U.S. 157 (1991) [Syllabus]
	CLEVELAND V. POLICY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CORP. [Syllabus]
	O'MELVENY & MYERS V. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79 (1994). [Syllabus]
	RAYMOND B. YATES, M.D., P.C. PROFIT SHARINGPLAN V. HENDON [Syllabus] Whether the working owner of a business (here, the sole shareholder of a corporate employer) is precluded from being a "participant" under Section 3(7) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1002(7), in an ERISA plan?
	GILBERT, PRESIDENT, EAST STROUDSBURG UNIVERSITY V. HOMAR, 520 U.S. 924 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CELOTEX CORP. V. EDWARDS, 514 U.S. 300 (1995). [Syllabus]
	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).
	SULLIVAN V. FINKELSTEIN, 496 U.S. 617 (1990) [Syllabus]
	BARNHART V. WALTON [Syllabus] The Social Security Administration's interpretations of the Social Security Act provisions that authorize payment of Social Security disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income to individuals who have an "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable . . . impairment . . . which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months," 42 U. S. C. §423(d)(1)(A); accord, §1382c(a)(3)(A), are lawful.
	PEGRAM V. HERDRICH [Syllabus] Whether a health maintenance organization (""HMO"") and its physicians breach a fiduciary duty under section 404(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1404(a)(1), by implementing a managed care program in which the physicians receive financial incentives to provide medical care to the HMO's enrollees in a cost-effective manner.
	METRO NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD CO. V. BUCKLEY, 521 U.S. 424 (1997) [Syllabus]
	FIRSTIER MORTGAGE CO. V.INVESTORS MTGE INS. CO., 498 U.S. 269 (1991) [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.
	YOUR HOME VISITING NURSE SERVICES, INC. V. SHALALA [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. FIOR D’ITALIA, INC. [Syllabus] In assessing a restaurant for Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes based upon tips that its employees may have received but did not report, the Internal Revenue Service is authorized to use an aggregate estimate of all tips that the restaurant's customers paid its employees.
	BLACK & DECKER DISABILITY PLAN V. NORD [Syllabus] Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that an ERISA disability plan administrator's determination of disability is subject to the treating physician rule and, therefore, the plan administrator is required to accept a treating physician's opinion of disability as controlling unless the plan administrator rebuts that opinion in writing based upon substantial evidence on the record.
	CATERPILLAR INC. V. LEWIS, 519 U.S. 61 (1996) [Syllabus]
	HEINTZ V. JENKINS, 514 U.S. 291 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CLEVELAND INDIANSBASEBALL CO. [Syllabus] Back wages are subject to FICA and FUTA taxes by reference to the year the wages are in fact paid.
	LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPT. V. UNITED REPORTINGPUBLISHING CORP. [Syllabus] Whether the government violates the First Amendment when it releases records but forbids their commercial use?
	BECK V. PACE INT L UNION [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. JAMES N. KIRBY,PTY LTD. [Syllabus]
	AIR LINE PILOTS V. O'NEILL, 499 U.S. 65 (1991) [Syllabus]
	EXXON CORP. V. CENTRAL GULF LINES, INC., 500 U.S. 603 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WINSTAR CORP. ET AL., 518 U.S. 839 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	AETNA HEALTH INC. V. DAVILA [Syllabus] Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), as construed by the Supreme Court in Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987), and its progeny, completely preempts state-law claims by ERISA plan participants or beneficiaries who assert that a managed care company tortiously "failed to cover" (i.e., pay for) medical care?
	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).
	UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP., 517 U.S. 843 (1996). [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASSN. V. FTC [Syllabus]
	WILTON V. SEVEN FALLS CO., 515 U.S. 277 (1995). [Syllabus]
	RUHRGAS AG V. MARATHON OIL CO. [Syllabus]
	ESTATE OF COWART V. NICKLOS DRILLING, 505 U.S. 469 (1992). [Syllabus]