Decision vacated; case remanded. Unanimous decision.

The Court affirmed the appeals court's judgment.

The court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the action for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The court vacated the judgment and remanded the cause, holding that in performing discretionary functions, petitioners were generally shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have had knowledge.

The court discharged the alternative writ and denied the carrier's application for a peremptory writ.

The judgment of the court of appeals applying a standard of review greater than abuse of discretion was reversed, the exclusion of expert testimony by the district court under the proper abuse of discretion standard was upheld, and the case was remanded for further consideration given the unchallenged ruling of the court of appeals that a genuine issue of fact precluded summary judgment.

The court adopted the appellate department's opinion, reversing the judgment of the trial court which struck appellant's answer, entered appellant's default, and awarded attorneys' fees. The trial court failed to find that appellant's failure to supply proper answers was without substantial justification. On remand, if respondent was dissatisfied with the supplemental answers, he could renew his motion...

The Court affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington. The Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Indiana and remanded the case for proceedings not inconsistent with the Court's opinion.

The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the disputed materials should be produced.

The court affirmed the reversal of the order dismissing the employee's sexual harassment suit, finding the employer was subject to vicarious liability for an actionable hostile work environment created by a supervisor with authority.

The court affirmed the appellate court's judgment as to the off-the-clock subclass, reversed its judgment as to the rest period subclass, and reversed its judgment as to the meal period subclass insofar as it directed the trial court to enter denial of certification with prejudice. The court remanded to the appellate court with directions.

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court finding that petitioner's speedy trial right had not been violated because he had not wanted a speedy trial, and because he had not been prejudiced by the delay.

Decision reversed and case remanded. Unanimous decision.

The court reversed the judgment of the intermediate appellate court.

The judgment of the state supreme court was reversed because it was unconstitutional to remove from the jury the assessment of facts that increased the prescribed range of penalties to which petitioner was exposed.

The judgment was reversed. Unanimous Decision.

The judgment of the Indiana Supreme Court was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. 9-0 decision; 2 concurrences; one justice concurred in the judgment.

Judgment vacated. Case remanded. 6-2 Decision; 1 Concurrence; 1 Dissent.

Reversed and remanded.

The state court's judgment was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. 7-2 decision; one concurrence in the judgment, one dissent.

The judgment asserting appellate jurisdiction and ordering arbitration between petitioner hospital and respondent construction company was affirmed because the stay of proceedings was final and appealable when its sole purpose was to surrender jurisdiction, and where there were no exceptional circumstances to support the surrender of federal jurisdiction.

The judgments of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, holding the mandatory schemes did not violate the Eighth Amendment, were reversed. The cases were remanded for further proceedings. 5-4 Decision; 1 opinion; 1 concurrence; 3 dissents.

The decision reversing the summary judgment for petitioners was reversed and remanded based on the Court's holding that the court of appeals erred by relying on irrelevant evidence and failing to consider the absence of a plausible motive for petitioners to engage in predatory pricing.

The court reversed the lower court, because procedures in place were sufficient to satisfy due process, and the state of persons receiving disability benefits was typically not as serious as that of welfare recipients.

Petitioner's conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial ordered because the omitted evidence favoring petitioner could have potentially resulted in a different verdict.