UNITED STATES

v.

KARO ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (U.S. 1984)
  …privacy of the Taos dwelling, and with respect to respondent Karo because the beeper had been installed without a warrant and had been monitored while its ether-can host was in his house.2 We [*711] granted the Government’s petition for certiorari, 464 U. S. 1068 (1984), which raised the question whether a warrant was required to authorize either the installation of the beeper or its subsequent monitoring. We deal with each contention in turn. II Because the judgment below in favor of Karo rested in major…
• Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 925 (U.S. 1984)
  …” policy covering all subcontractor employees. The Court of Appeals concluded that, by pre-empting its subcontractors, WMATA acted voluntarily, and was therefore not entitled to §5(a)’s immunity. We granted WMATA’s petition for a writ of certiorari, 464 U. S. 1068 (1984), and we now reverse. I — I I — I Workers compensation statutes, such as the LHWCA, “provide for compensation, in the stead of liability, for a class of employees.” S. Rep. No. 973, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 16 (1926). These statutes reflect a…
• United States v. Lorenzetti, 467 U.S. 167 (U.S. 1984)
  …ion of § 8132 was squarely inconsistent with that of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Ostrowski. 710 F. 2d, at 984. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict over the scope of the United States’ right of reimbursement under § 8132. 464 U. S. 1068 (1984). We now reverse. HH t-H The answer to the question presented here is evident on the face of the statute, it seems to us, for § 8132 by its own terms requires respondent to reimburse the United States for the disputed sum. Section 8132 prov…