[**657] In the case before us there is no indication the atmosphere at respondent's trial was one of coercion or intimidation to the severe extent demonstrated in the cases just discussed. The instant case does present the issue whether as a preventative measure, or as a general rule to preserve the calm and dignity of a court, buttons proclaiming a message relevant to the case ought to be prohibited as a matter of...

The Supreme Court of Florida's judgment was reversed and the case was remanded.

The judgment of the lower court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

The court of appeals' judgment was affirmed.

The judgment was reversed. The consolidated cases were remanded to the district court for further proceedings. 5-4 decision; 1 concurrence; 2 dissents.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit's judgment was reversed and remanded. 6-3 decision; 1 concurrence; 3 dissents.

The judgment upholding the dismissal of the employee's claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

The United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court and remanded the cases for further proceedings.

The court reversed the judgments of the district court and court of appeal finding in favor of the employee. The court then rendered judgment in favor of the employer and the supervisor, dismissing the employee's action at her cost.

The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for trial.

Defendant's conviction was affirmed.

The judgment of the Seventh Circuit was affirmed, and the matter was remanded for resentencing. In the second case, the judgment was vacated and remanded for resentencing under the system set out by the Supreme Court.

The court vacated, inter alia, the subdelegation to state commissions of decision-making authority over impairment determinations, the nationwide impairment determinations with respect to these elements, the decision not to take into account availability of tariffed special access services when conducting the impairment analysis, and the decision that wireless carriers were impaired without unbundled access to ILECs dedicated...

Judgment vacated, and case remanded for a new trial, with instructions to reconsider admitting testimony of defendant's expert witness.

The court reversed the veterans court's decision in part. It reversed and remanded the portion of the decision that held that the Veterans Administration regulations required dual disability ratings for bilateral tinnitus, where each ear was affected by a single case of tinnitus. The court noted that no other portion of the veterans court's decision had been challenged on appeal.

The court reversed and directed the intermediate appellate court to reinstate the judgment of dismissal issued by the trial court in favor of defendant, attorney for plaintiff's former wife, in plaintiff former husband's action for intentional tort, as defendant's statements during plaintiff's divorce case fell within the scope of the statutory litigation privilege.

The orders were reversed, the insurers' motions to dismiss the remaining claims were granted, and the certified question was answered in the negative.

The judgment affirming defendant's sentence was affirmed.

The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and rendered judgment that the employee take nothing in her action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, slander, and defamation because petitioners' conduct was not extreme and outrageous, petitioners did not willfully detain the employee, and petitioners did not slander or defame the employee.

The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed and judgment was entered in favor of appellant because the trial court's failure to instruct the jury as to the elements of breach of warranty did not constitute a reversible error.

The court affirmed the order.

The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the co-workers and the supervisor and remanded with instructions to the district court to permit the administrator an opportunity to amend her state-created danger claims against the supervisor. The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the remaining defendants. The administrator's equal protection claim was also remanded to provide the opportunity...

The order granting the preliminary injunction was affirmed.

The court withheld determination of the appeal of the judgment of the appellate division that affirmed defendant's conviction for robbery in the first degree. The court remitted the case to the trial court for a hearing as to the voluntariness of defendant's confession.

Court indicated possibility of recovery from defendants shown negligent to the extent of their participation in the DES market, even though the plaintiffs could not identify particular source of DES which their mothers ingested, and answered the four certified questions.