Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341 is an English contract law case concerning the principles behind illegal transactions. It is also possibly the first case in English law where the court explicitly recognised that aspects of a claim before the court might be adjudicated according to foreign law.
Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948), was a significant United States Supreme Court decision addressing search warrants and the Fourth Amendment.In this case, where federal agents had probable cause to search a hotel room but did not obtain a warrant, the Court declared the search was "unreasonable."
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 .
The Court of Appeals affirmed, but today this Court reverses, holding that Howard Johnson was not a successor employer. I believe that the principles of successorship laid down in John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston, 376 U. S. 543, and NLRB v. Burns International Security Services, 406 U. S. 272, require affirmance, and thus I dissent.
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 ...
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.
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 ...
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 ...