About: Encino Motorcars v. Navarro     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com/c/9kqWSfJSbw

Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a Supreme Court of the United States case addressing overtime pay. Specifically at issue is whether automotive service advisors are eligible for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

AttributesValues
rdf:type
rdfs:label
  • Encino Motorcars v. Navarro (en)
rdfs:comment
  • Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a Supreme Court of the United States case addressing overtime pay. Specifically at issue is whether automotive service advisors are eligible for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. (en)
foaf:name
  • (en)
  • Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Hector Navarro, ''et al' (en)
dct:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
sameAs
Subsequent
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
Dissent
  • Thomas (en)
  • Ginsburg (en)
docket
JoinDissent
  • Alito (en)
  • Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan (en)
JoinMajority
  • Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan (en)
  • Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Gorsuch (en)
LawsApplied
oyez
ParallelCitations
Prior
USPage
USVol
ArgueDate
ArgueYear
case
  • Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, (en)
courtlistener
DecideDate
DecideYear
fullname
  • Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Hector Navarro, ''et al' (en)
Holding
  • Automotive service advisors are considered exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, reversing the decision of the Ninth Circuit (en)
justia
Litigants
  • Encino Motorcars v. Navarro (en)
majority
  • Thomas (en)
  • Kennedy (en)
other source
  • Supreme Court (en)
other url
has abstract
  • Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a Supreme Court of the United States case addressing overtime pay. Specifically at issue is whether automotive service advisors are eligible for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case had been heard twice by the Supreme Court. In the first pass, the Court had vacated a previous decision by the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court which relied on an interpretive ruling on the Fair Labor Standards Act provided by the United States Department of Labor to states that service advisors were not exempt, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit. On rehearing, the Ninth Circuit still found the same; its decision was reversed in the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling. (en)
googlescholar
prov:wasDerivedFrom
page length (characters) of wiki page
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git147 as of Sep 06 2024


Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE     Content Formats:   [cxml] [csv]     RDF   [text] [turtle] [ld+json] [rdf+json] [rdf+xml]     ODATA   [atom+xml] [odata+json]     Microdata   [microdata+json] [html]    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3331 as of Sep 2 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 65 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software