Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query tort or negligence returned 103 results.

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

	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	ATHERTON V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 519 U.S. 213 (1997). [Syllabus]
	ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH [Opinion]
	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.
	MILES V. APEX MARINE CORP.., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) [Syllabus]
	TIME, INC. V. FIRESTONE [Concurrence]
	CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORP. V. GOTTSHALL, 114 S. CT. 2396, 129 L. ED. 2D 427 (1994) [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN [Opinion]
	STEWART V. DUTRA CONSTR. CO. [Syllabus]
	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.
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON [Opinion]
	TIME, INC. V. FIRESTONE [Dissent]
	EXXON CO., U. S. A., ET AL. V. SOFEC, INC., ET AL., 516 U.S. 1156 (1996). [Syllabus]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON [Dissent]
	WILSON V. SEITER [Opinion]
	ROSENBLOOM V. METROMEDIA [Opinion]
	ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS [Opinion]
	METRO NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD CO. V. BUCKLEY, 521 U.S. 424 (1997) [Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CSX TRANSP. V. EASTERWOOD, 507 U.S. 658 (1993). [Syllabus]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WHITLEY V. ALBERS [Opinion]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON [Syllabus]
	CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. V. BUTTS [Opinion]
	MILKOVICH V. LORAIN JOURNAL CO. [Opinion]
	ROSENBLOOM V. METROMEDIA [Concurrence]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Concurrence]
	BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH [Syllabus]
	GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC. [Dissent]
	RIEGEL V. MEDTRONIC, INC. [Syllabus]
	YAMAHA MOTOR CORP., U. S. A., V. CALHOUN, 516 U.S. 199 (1996) [Syllabus]
	FRANCHISE TAX BD. OF CAL. V. HYATT [Syllabus] A long-time resident of California sued that State in a Nevada state court, alleging that California committed the torts of invasion of privacy, abuse of process, and fraud in the course of a personal income tax investigation concerning the timing of the individual's change of residence the timing of the individual's change of residence from California to Nevada. California Government Code section 860.2 reads: Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by….(a) Instituting any judicial or administrative proceeding of a tax. In Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979) this Court ruled that , in a tort action against Nevada arising out of a traffic accident occurring in California, California need not give full faith and credit to Nevada's statutory limitation on liability for injuries caused by Nevada state employees. However, the Court also noted that its ruling was fact-based: California's exercise of jurisdiction in this case poses no substantial threat to our constitutional system of cooperative federalism. Suits involving traffic accidents occurring outside of Nevada could hardly interfere with Nevada's capacity to fulfill its own sovereign responsibilities. 440 U.S. at 424 n.24 The question presented is: Did the Nevada Supreme Court impermissibly interfere with California's capacity to fulfill its sovereign responsibilities, in derogation of article IV, section 1, by refusing to give full faith and credit to California Government Code section 860.2, in a suit brought against California for the torts of invasion of privacy, outrage, abuse of process, and fraud allege to have occurred in the course of California's administrative efforts to determine a former resident's liability for California personal income tax?
	[Syllabus]
	TIME, INC. V. FIRESTONE [Opinion]
	GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC. [Dissent]
	HOUSTON EAST AND WEST TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. V. BUTTS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ESTELLE V. GAMBLE [Dissent]
	INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT [Dissent]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Opinion]
	CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. V. BUTTS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. V. BUTTS [Concurrence]
	GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC. [Dissent]
	BATES V. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC [Syllabus]
	GUTIERREZ DE MARTINEZ V. LAMAGNO, 515 U.S. 417 (1995). [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?
	HARBOR TUG & BARGE CO. V. PAPAI ET UX., 520 U.S. 548 (1997). [Syllabus]
	DOGGETT V. UNITED STATES, 505 U.S. 647 (1992). [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?"
	WILL V. HALLOCK [Syllabus]
	CHANDRIS, INC. V. LATSIS, 515 U.S. 347 (1995). [Syllabus]
	OLYMPIC AIRWAYS V. HUSAIN [Syllabus] Whether the accident condition precedent to air carrier liability for a passenger's death under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention is satisfied when a passenger's pre-existing medical condition is aggravated by exposure to a normal condition in the aircraft cabin, even if the carrier's negligence were a link in the chain, of causation? The Ninth Circuit's answer to this question in the affirmative directly conflicts with the Third and Eleventh Circuit decisions in Abramson v. Japan Airlines, Co., Ltd., 739 F.2d 130 (3d Cir. 1984), cert. Denied, 470 U.S. 1059 (1985) and Krys v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 119 F.3d 1515 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1111 (1998), and is contrary to the Court's decision in Air France. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (1985).
	PHILIP MORRIS USA V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	LEOCAL V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus]
	COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO V. LEWIS, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ESTATE OF COWART V. NICKLOS DRILLING, 505 U.S. 469 (1992). [Syllabus]
	EDMONSON V. LEESVILLE CONCRETE CO., 500 U.S. 614 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. BURR [Syllabus]
	MEDTRONIC, INC. V. LOHR ET VIR, 518 U.S. 470 (1996). [Syllabus]
	WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR [Syllabus] 2. Whether 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254 (e) (2), which prohibits a federal habeas court from holding an evidentiary hearing only ""if the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State Court proceedings, ""governs petitioner's claims where throughout state proceedings, the state suppressed the relevant facts, denied petitioner's discovery requests, denied all investigative and expert resources to investigate, develop, and discover claims, and denied an evidentiary hearing."
	CITY OF MILWAUKEE V. CEMENT DIV., NAT'L GYPSUM CO., 515 U.S. 189 (1995). [Syllabus]
	MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. WILANDER, 498 U.S. 337 (1991) [Syllabus]
	O'MELVENY & MYERS V. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79 (1994). [Syllabus]
	FMC CORP. V. HOLLIDAY, 498 U.S. 52 (1990) [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."
	UNITED STATES V. OLSON [Syllabus]
	PIERCE COUNTY V. GUILLEN [Syllabus] Both the original 23 U. S. C. §409 and a 1995 amendment, which together protect information "compiled or collected" in connection with certain federal highway safety programs from being discovered or admitted in certain federal or state trials, fall within Congress' Commerce Clause power.
	WILSON V. SEITER, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) [Syllabus]
	FARMER V. BRENNAN, 511 U.S. 825 (1994). [Syllabus]
	TIME, INC. V. FIRESTONE [Dissent]
	CHAMBERS V. MARONEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	COLEGROVE V. GREEN [Dissent]
	WARD'S COVE PACKING CO., INC. V. ANTONIO [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Concurrence]
	CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. V. BUTTS [Syllabus]
	ENMUND V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	COKER V. GEORGIA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC. [Opinion]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE [Opinion]
	HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	WILSON V. SEITER [Syllabus]
	HOBBIE V. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM'N OF FLORIDA [Opinion]
	TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Concurrence]
	JACOBELLIS V. OHIO [Dissent]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN [Syllabus]
	SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA [Dissent]
	NIXON V. FITZGERALD [Dissent]
	JOHNSON V. ZERBST [Opinion]
	PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS [Concurrence]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE [Dissent]
	ENMUND V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY [Concurrence]
	CHAMBERS V. MARONEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	IN RE WINSHIP [Opinion]
	GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC. [Concurrence]
	MARBURY V. MADISON [Opinion]
	SCALES V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	COKER V. GEORGIA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC. [Dissent]
	BALLEW V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	COHENS V. VIRGINIA [Syllabus]
	BUTZ V. ECONOMOU [Opinion]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PARHAM V. J.R. [Opinion]
	BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) [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.
	METRO NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD CO. V. BUCKLEY, 521 U.S. 424 (1997) [Syllabus]
	MILES V. APEX MARINE CORP.., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) [Syllabus]
	WILL V. HALLOCK [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?
	STEWART V. DUTRA CONSTR. CO. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. OLSON [Syllabus]
	EXXON CO., U. S. A., ET AL. V. SOFEC, INC., ET AL., 516 U.S. 1156 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	RIEGEL V. MEDTRONIC, INC. [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."
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BATES V. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC [Syllabus]
	CSX TRANSP. V. EASTERWOOD, 507 U.S. 658 (1993). [Syllabus]
	YAMAHA MOTOR CORP., U. S. A., V. CALHOUN, 516 U.S. 199 (1996) [Syllabus]
	PIERCE COUNTY V. GUILLEN [Syllabus] Both the original 23 U. S. C. §409 and a 1995 amendment, which together protect information "compiled or collected" in connection with certain federal highway safety programs from being discovered or admitted in certain federal or state trials, fall within Congress' Commerce Clause power.
	MEDTRONIC, INC. V. LOHR ET VIR, 518 U.S. 470 (1996). [Syllabus]
	FRANCHISE TAX BD. OF CAL. V. HYATT [Syllabus] A long-time resident of California sued that State in a Nevada state court, alleging that California committed the torts of invasion of privacy, abuse of process, and fraud in the course of a personal income tax investigation concerning the timing of the individual's change of residence the timing of the individual's change of residence from California to Nevada. California Government Code section 860.2 reads: Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by….(a) Instituting any judicial or administrative proceeding of a tax. In Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979) this Court ruled that , in a tort action against Nevada arising out of a traffic accident occurring in California, California need not give full faith and credit to Nevada's statutory limitation on liability for injuries caused by Nevada state employees. However, the Court also noted that its ruling was fact-based: California's exercise of jurisdiction in this case poses no substantial threat to our constitutional system of cooperative federalism. Suits involving traffic accidents occurring outside of Nevada could hardly interfere with Nevada's capacity to fulfill its own sovereign responsibilities. 440 U.S. at 424 n.24 The question presented is: Did the Nevada Supreme Court impermissibly interfere with California's capacity to fulfill its sovereign responsibilities, in derogation of article IV, section 1, by refusing to give full faith and credit to California Government Code section 860.2, in a suit brought against California for the torts of invasion of privacy, outrage, abuse of process, and fraud allege to have occurred in the course of California's administrative efforts to determine a former resident's liability for California personal income tax?
	O'MELVENY & MYERS V. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79 (1994). [Syllabus]
	GUTIERREZ DE MARTINEZ V. LAMAGNO, 515 U.S. 417 (1995). [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	ATHERTON V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 519 U.S. 213 (1997). [Syllabus]
	COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO V. LEWIS, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) [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?"
	FMC CORP. V. HOLLIDAY, 498 U.S. 52 (1990) [Syllabus]
	SARATOGA FISHING CO. V. J. M. MARTINAC & CO., 520 U.S. 875 (1997) [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER V. SCHLEIER, 515 U.S. 323 (1995). [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''?
	UNITED STATES V. BURKE, 504 U.S. 229 (1992). [Syllabus]
	JEROME B. GRUBART, INC. V. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO., 513 U.S. 527 (1995). [Syllabus]
	MONTEREY V. DEL MONTE DUNES ATMONTEREY, LTD. [Syllabus]
	CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORP. V. GOTTSHALL, 114 S. CT. 2396, 129 L. ED. 2D 427 (1994) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 499 U.S. 160 (1991) [Syllabus]
	F.D.I.C. V. MEYER, 510 U.S. 471 (1994). [Syllabus]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	OSBORN V. HALEY [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KAWAAUHAU V. GEIGER, 523 U.S. 57 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MEYER V. HOLLEY [Syllabus] The Fair Housing Act imposes liability without fault upon a corporate employer in accordance with traditional agency principles, i.e., it normally imposes vicarious liability upon the corporation but not upon its officers or owners.
	HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. V. ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO. [Syllabus]
	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.
	O'GILVIE MINORS V. UNITED STATES, 519 U.S. 79 (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.
	WILKIE V. ROBBINS [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GAUBERT, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) [Syllabus]
	AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC. V. WINDSOR, 117 S.CT. 2231, 138 L.ED.2D 689 (1997). [Syllabus]
	AUTOMOBILE WORKERS V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., 499 US.187 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HAWAIIAN AIRLINES V. NORRIS, 512 U.S. 246 (1994). [Syllabus]
	RASUL V. BUSH [Syllabus] Whether United States courts lack jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba?
	PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE V. SUDERS [Syllabus] When a hostile work environment created by a supervisor culminates in a constructive discharge, may the employer assert an affirmative defense?
	ALBRIGHT V. OLIVER, 510 U.S. 266 (1994). [Syllabus]
	HERCULES INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 417 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP. [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. UNITED STATES, 507 U.S. 197 (1993). [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.
	HADDLE V. GARRISON [Syllabus]
	SPRIETSMA V. MERCURY MARINE [Syllabus] A state common-law tort action seeking damages from the manufacturer of an outboard motor is not pre-empted by the enactment of the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 or by the Coast Guard's decision not to promulgate a regulation requiring propeller guards on motorboats.
	RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997). [Syllabus]
	WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR [Syllabus] 2. Whether 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254 (e) (2), which prohibits a federal habeas court from holding an evidentiary hearing only ""if the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State Court proceedings, ""governs petitioner's claims where throughout state proceedings, the state suppressed the relevant facts, denied petitioner's discovery requests, denied all investigative and expert resources to investigate, develop, and discover claims, and denied an evidentiary hearing."
	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?
	SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. BURR [Syllabus]
	CONNECTICUT V. DOEHR, 501 U.S. 1 (1991) [Syllabus]
	EDMONSON V. LEESVILLE CONCRETE CO., 500 U.S. 614 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ESTATE OF COWART V. NICKLOS DRILLING, 505 U.S. 469 (1992). [Syllabus]
	OLYMPIC AIRWAYS V. HUSAIN [Syllabus] Whether the accident condition precedent to air carrier liability for a passenger's death under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention is satisfied when a passenger's pre-existing medical condition is aggravated by exposure to a normal condition in the aircraft cabin, even if the carrier's negligence were a link in the chain, of causation? The Ninth Circuit's answer to this question in the affirmative directly conflicts with the Third and Eleventh Circuit decisions in Abramson v. Japan Airlines, Co., Ltd., 739 F.2d 130 (3d Cir. 1984), cert. Denied, 470 U.S. 1059 (1985) and Krys v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 119 F.3d 1515 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1111 (1998), and is contrary to the Court's decision in Air France. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (1985).
	MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. WILANDER, 498 U.S. 337 (1991) [Syllabus]
	STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MCNEIL V. UNITED STATES, 508 U.S. 106 (1993). [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.
	AMERICAN NAT. RED CROSS V. S. G., 505 U.S. 247 (1992). [Syllabus]
	GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS, INC. V. DARUEENGINEERING & MFG. [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. JONES, 515 U.S. 304 (1995). [Syllabus]
	LEOCAL V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus]
	EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES, LTD. V. TSUI YUAN TSENG [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. JAMES N. KIRBY,PTY LTD. [Syllabus]
	HECK V. HUMPHREY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). [Syllabus]
	HARBOR TUG & BARGE CO. V. PAPAI ET UX., 520 U.S. 548 (1997). [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION V. PUBLICCITIZEN [Syllabus] Whether a presidential foreign-affairs action that is otherwise exempt from environmental-review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1), became subject to those requirements because an executive agency promulgated administrative rules concerning implementation of the President's action?
	DURA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. V. BROUDO [Syllabus]
	DOGGETT V. UNITED STATES, 505 U.S. 647 (1992). [Syllabus]
	SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC. V. HENSON [Syllabus] The All Writs Act does not furnish removal jurisdiction; that Act, alone or in combination with the existence of ancillary enforcement jurisdiction, is not a substitute for 28 U. S. C. §1441's requirement that a federal court have original jurisdiction over an action in order for it to be removed from a state court.
	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."
	PHILIP MORRIS USA V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	NEVADA V. HICKS [Syllabus] A tribal court does not have jurisdiction over tortious conduct and 42 U. S. C. §1983 claims against state officials who entered tribal land to investigate off-reservation violations of state law.
	ANKENBRANDT V. RICHARDS, 504 U.S. 689 (1992). [Syllabus]
	SAUDI ARABIA V. NELSON, 507 U.S. 349 (1993). [Syllabus]
	FARMER V. BRENNAN, 511 U.S. 825 (1994). [Syllabus]
	JEFFERSON V. CITY OF TARRANT, ALA., 522 U.S. 75 (1997) [Syllabus]
	BAKER BY THOMAS V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HUMANA INC. V. FORSYTH [Syllabus]
	CITY OF MILWAUKEE V. CEMENT DIV., NAT'L GYPSUM CO., 515 U.S. 189 (1995). [Syllabus]
	WILSON V. SEITER, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ALI V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL BANK OF DENVER V. FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF DENVER, 114 S. CT. 1439, (1994) [Syllabus]
	CHANDRIS, INC. V. LATSIS, 515 U.S. 347 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ARCHER V. WARNER [Syllabus] A debt for money promised in a settlement agreement accompanied by the release of underlying tort claims can amount to a debt for money obtained by fraud, within the terms of 11 U. S. C. §523(a)(2)(A), the Bankruptcy Code's nondischargeability provision.
	DOE V. CHAO [Syllabus]
	QUACKENBUSH, CAL. INS. COMM'R, ET AL. V. ALLSTATE INS. CO., 517 U.S. 706 (1996) [Syllabus]
	INGERSOLL-RAND CO. V. MCCLENDON, 498 U.S. 133 (1990) [Syllabus]