enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. United States v. Johnson (1943) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Johnson...

    Iowa, 18 Wall. 129, 134-35; Atherton Mills v. Johnston, 259 U.S. 13, 15. Whenever in the course of litigation such a defect in the proceedings is brought to the court's attention, it may set aside any adjudication thus procured and dismiss the cause without entering judgment on the [**1077] merits.

  3. United States v. Johnson (1911) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Johnson...

    In United States v. Johnson , 221 U.S. 488 (1911), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the misbranding provisions of the Pure Food and Drug Act [ 1 ] of 1906 did not pertain to false curative or therapeutic statements but only false statements as to the identity of the drug .

  4. United States v. Johnson (1968) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Johnson...

    Justice Douglas reversed for a 5-3 majority. He held that the provisions of 207(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 making the remedies provided in Title II of the Act the exclusive means of enforcing rights based on such part do not preclude a criminal prosecution of the defendants under 18 USC 241, since the exclusive-remedy provision applies only to enforcement of substantive rights to ...

  5. United States v. Johnson (1966) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Johnson...

    On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court affirmed. In an opinion by Harlan, J., it was held that (1) the prosecution on the conspiracy count, being dependent upon an intensive inquiry with respect to the speech on the floor of the House, violated the speech or debate clause of Article I section 6, so as to warrant the granting of a new trial on the conspiracy count, with all elements ...

  6. United States v. Johnson (1946) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Johnson...

    The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the district court properly found that there was no prejudiced testimony. According to the Court, the appellate court improperly substituted its own finding that the challenged witness's original testimony was unerringly false and that the trial court's contrary conclusion amounted to an abuse of discretion.

  7. Daniel Patrick Moynihan - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan

    Daniel Patrick Moynihan (/ ˈ m ɔɪ n ɪ h æ n /; March 16, 1927 – March 26, 2003) was an American politician, diplomat and social scientist. [1] A member of the Democratic Party, he represented New York in the United States Senate from 1977 until 2001 after serving as an adviser to President Richard Nixon, and as the United States' ambassador to India and to the United Nations.

  8. Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Southern...

    Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co. , 196 U.S. 1 (1904), was a case before the United States Supreme Court . It interpreted the words "any car" in the Railroad Safety Appliance Act , prohibiting common carriers moving interstate commerce from using any car that was not equipped with automatic couplers.

  9. United States v. Johnson (1899) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Johnson...

    In this refusal they were upheld by the Supreme Court. While the Act of March 2, 1889, 40 U.S.C.A. § 256 (which requires that all legal services connected with the procurement of title should be rendered by U.S. District Attorneys) was in force at the time the direction by the Attorney General was given to Johnson in 1891, the Supreme Court, nevertheless, made no reference to that Statute in ...