Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/index.html?query=price&scope=onlysyllabi
Timestamp: 2014-10-24 15:37:10
Document Index: 665744163

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 6', '§ 15', '§14501', '§14501', '§1', '§1441']

Search the Opinions of the US Supreme Court
Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court Search for: All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory
Your query price returned 72 results. PRICE V. VINCENT[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Michigan Supreme Court's conclusion that the trial court did not direct a verdict of acquittal is a factual finding entitled to deference on habeas corpus review. 2. Whether Defendant Vincent was twice placed in jeopardy by the action of the trial court in first granting a motion for directed verdict on the issue of first degree murder, and shortly thereafter withdrawing its grant, where both the initial decision and its recall occurred out of the presence of the jury. 3. Whether this Court should grant certiorari to clarify the jurisprudence where there is a split of opinion within the United States Courts of Appeals and within the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and State Courts on the question of whether double jeopardy principles were violated in factually similar situations.
PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS[Concurrence]
PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS[Syllabus]
PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS[Dissent]
PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS[Opinion]
PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. LINKLINECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.[Syllabus]
LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. V.PSKS, INC.[Syllabus]
VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. REEDER-SIMCO GMC, INC.[Syllabus]
PRICE V. VINCENT[Syllabus]
DURA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. V. BROUDO[Syllabus]
STATE OIL CO. V. KHAN, 522 U.S. 3 (1997)[Syllabus]
ERICA P. JOHN FUND, INC. V. HALLIBURTON CO.[Syllabus]
TEXACO, INC. V. HASBROUCK, 496 U.S. 543 (1990)[Syllabus]
44 LIQUORMART, INC., ET AL. V. RHODE ISLAND ET AL., 517 U.S. 484 (1996).[Syllabus]
NEW JERSEY V. NEW YORK, 523 U.S. 767 (1998)[Syllabus]
HILLSIDE DAIRY INC. V. LYONS[Syllabus]
1. Whether section 144 of the 1996 Farm Bill creates an unmistakably clear blanket exemption to the dormant Commerce Clause For California's interstate regulation of the dairy industry, which would be otherwise limited by this Court's holding in baldwin v. G.A. F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511 (1935), and its progeny? 2. Whether it is proper for courts to resort to legislative history or a paraphrase of a statute in order to discern an unmistakably clear Congressional exemption to the negative Commerce Clause?
EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. V. NEZTSOSIE[Syllabus]
WEYERHAEUSER CO. V. ROSS-SIMMONS HARDWOODLUMBER CO.[Syllabus]
GROSS V. FBL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.[Syllabus]
BANK OF AMERICA NAT. TRUST AND SAV. ASSN. V.203 NORTH LASALLE STREET PARTNERSHIP[Syllabus]
F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD. V. EMPAGRAN S.A.[Syllabus]
(1) Whether under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA), 15 U.S.C. § 6a, the Sherman Act applies to claims of foreign plaintiffs whose injuries do not arise from the effects of antitrust violations on United States commerce? (2) Whether such foreign plaintiffs lack antitrust standing under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a)?
ASTRA USA, INC. V.SANTA CLARA COUNTY[Syllabus]
COLUMBUS V. OURS GARAGE & WRECKERSERVICE, INC.[Syllabus]
49 U. S. C. §14501(c)(2)(A)-which excepts "the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles" from §14501(c)(1)'s general rule preempting prescriptions by "a State [or] political subdivision of a State . . . related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . with respect to the transportation of property"-does not bar a State from delegating to municipalities and other local units the State's authority to establish safety regulations governing motor carriers of property, including tow trucks.
BOEING CO. V. UNITED STATES[Syllabus]
Title 26 CFR §1.861-8(e)(3) (1979)-which governs allocation of research and development expenses in computing taxable income from export sales entitled to special tax treatment under Internal Revenue Code provisions pertaining to "domestic international sales corporations" and "foreign sales corporations"-is a proper exercise of the Secretary of the Treasury's rulemaking authority.
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?
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.
PENRY V. JOHNSON[Syllabus]
The jury instructions at Penry's resentencing for capital murder did not comply with the Court's mandate in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302; the admission into evidence of statements from a psychiatric report based on an uncounseled interview with Penry did not run afoul of the Fifth Amendment.
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. FCC[Syllabus]
The Federal Communications Commission can require state utility commissions to set the
rates charged for leased telecommunications network elements on a forward-looking basis untied to the network owners' investment, and can require those owners to combine such elements upon the request of a leasing competitor that cannot do the combining itself.
CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASSN. V. FTC[Syllabus]
RENO V. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, 520 U.S. 471 (1997).[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.
SHALALA V. ILLINOIS COUNCIL ON LONGTERM CARE, INC.[Syllabus]
Whether 42 U.S.C. 405H(h), incorporated into the Medicare Act by 42 U.S.C. 1395ii, permits skilled nursing facilities participating in the Medicare program to obtain judicial review under 28 U.S.C.1331 and 1346 (1994 & Supp. II 1996) to challenge the validity of Medicare regulations.
UNITED STATES V. EURODIF S.�A.[Syllabus]
DUNN V. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, 519 U.S. 465 (1997).[Syllabus]
METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990)[Syllabus]
HERTZ CORP. V. FRIEND[Syllabus]
MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL GROUP INC. V. PUBLICUTIL. DIST. NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH CTY.[Syllabus]
HERRING V. UNITED STATES[Syllabus]
ATWATER V. LAGO VISTA[Syllabus]
The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine.
KANSAS ET AL. V UTILICORP UNITED, INC., 497 U.S. 199 (1990)[Syllabus]
MONTANA V. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, 523 U.S. 696 (1998)[Syllabus]
FIDELITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. V. FINK, 522 U.S. 221 (1998)[Syllabus]
DESERT PALACE, INC. V. COSTA[Syllabus]
1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that direct evidence is not required in Title VII cases to trigger the application of the mixed-motive analysis set out in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins? 2. What are the appropriate standards for lower courts to follow in making a direct evidence determination in mixed-motive cases under Title VII?
AT&T CORP. V. HULTEEN[Syllabus]
BILSKI V. KAPPOS[Syllabus]
GRANHOLM V. HEALD[Syllabus]
558 U.�S. ____ (2009)[Syllabus]
MAISLIN INDUSTRIES, U.S. V. PRIMARY STEEL, 497 U.S. 116 (1990)[Syllabus]
GUSTAFSON V. ALLOYD CO., 513 U.S. 561 (1995).[Syllabus]
ROWE V. NEW HAMPSHIRE MOTOR TRANSP. ASSN.[Syllabus]
RENO V. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD.[Syllabus]
Whether the district court erred in concluding that, because Bossier Parish School Board’s 1992 redistricting plan was not enacted with a retrogressive purpose, it was not enacted with ""the purpose *** of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race,"" within the meaning of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S C. 1973c.
CITY OF SHERRILL V. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF N.�Y.[Syllabus]
FESTO CORP. V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYOKABUSHIKI CO.[Syllabus]
Prosecution history estoppel may apply to any claim amendment made to satisfy the Patent Act's requirements, not just to amendments made to avoid the prior art, but estoppel need not bar suit against every equivalent to the amended claim element.
TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. V. F.C.C., 520 U.S. 180 (1997)[Syllabus]
FCC V. NEXTWAVE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS INC.[Syllabus]
Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from revoking licenses held by a bankruptcy debtor upon the debtor's failure to make timely payments to the FCC for purchase of the licenses.
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE, 517 U.S. 559 (1996).[Syllabus]
STONERIDGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC V.SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC.[Syllabus]
ELDRED V. ASHCROFT[Syllabus]
The Copyright Term Extension Act, which enlarges the duration of existing and future copyrights by 20 years, does not exceed Congress' power under the Constitution's Copyright Clause and does not violate the First Amendment.
UNITED STATES V. WINSTAR CORP. ET AL., 518 U.S. 839 (1996).[Syllabus]
JANUS CAPITAL GROUP, INC. V. FIRST DERIVATIVE TRADERS[Syllabus]
KANSAS V. VENTRIS[Syllabus]
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. V. UNITED STATES[Syllabus]
UNITED STATES V. O'HAGAN, 117 S.CT. 2199, 138 L.ED.2D 724 (1997).[Syllabus]
EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES, LTD. V. TSUI YUAN TSENG[Syllabus]
GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES, INC. V. SEB S.�A.[Syllabus]
ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL CORP. V. RASH ET UX., 117 S.CT. 1879, 138 L.ED.2D (1997)[Syllabus]
STOLT-NIELSEN S. A. V. ANIMALFEEDS INTL CORP.[Syllabus]