Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc. , 499 U.S. 187 (1991), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that private sector policies prohibiting women from knowingly working in potentially hazardous occupations are discriminatory and in violation of Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 ...
R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and R (Carson & Reynolds) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions were a series of civil action court cases seeking judicial review of the British government's policies under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Wandsworth London Borough Council v Michalak [2003] 1 WLR 617, 625; [10] R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2002] 3 All ER 994; Müller v Austria (1975) 3 DR 25; Gaygusuz v Austria (1997) 23 EHRR 364, 376, 381; [11] Jankovic v Croatia (2000) 30 EHRR CD183; Koua Poirrez v France (2005) 40 EHRR 34, 45; [12] Hepple v United ...
R (on the application of SG and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was a 2015 judgment by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom where by a majority of 3–2 the court ruled that the benefit cap, a British government policy limiting welfare benefits, was legal. [1]
From a creative work: This is a redirect from a creative work to a related topic such as the author, artist, publisher, or a subject related to the work. Creative works should only have an individual article when they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and there is enough material to warrant a detailed article.
Johnson v. United States , 529 U.S. 694 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the rights of those serving federal probation and supervised release were more clearly defined.
On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court affirmed 5-4. In an opinion by Blackmun, J., it was held that the rule announced in Payton v.New York applies to a case which was pending on direct appeal when Payton was decided, Payton not having applied settled precedent to a new set of facts, not having announced an entirely new and unanticipated principle of law, nor having held either that ...