This HTML5 document contains 123 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
n17https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
n25https://scholar.google.com/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
n20https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/802771/knox-v-service-employees/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n18https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n5https://www.leagle.com/decision/
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
n21https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/
n19http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/knox-v-service-employees-intl-union-local-1000/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
n14https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/298/
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
n23https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4158337/139/knox-v-westly/
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/
n15https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Knox_v._Service_Employees_International_Union,_Local_1000
rdf:type
dbo:UnitOfWork dbo:LegalCase dbo:Case dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase wikidata:Q2334719 owl:Thing
rdfs:label
Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000
rdfs:comment
Knox v. Service Employees International Union, 567 U.S. 298 (2012), is a United States constitutional law case. The United States Supreme Court held in a 7–2 decision that Dianne Knox and other non-members of the Service Employees International Union did not receive the required notice of a $12 million assessment the union charged them to raise money for the union's political fund. In a tighter 5–4 ruling, the court further held that the long-standing precedent, the First Amendment requirement that non-union members covered by union contracts be given the chance to "opt out" of special fees was insufficient. Setting new precedent, the majority ruled that non-members shall be sent notice giving them the option to opt into special fees.
foaf:name
Knox et al. v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000
dcterms:subject
dbc:United_States_public_employment_trade_union_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbc:United_States_Free_Speech_Clause_case_law dbc:2012_in_United_States_case_law dbc:Right_to_work dbc:Service_Employees_International_Union_litigation dbc:United_States_labor_case_law
dbo:wikiPageID
43446037
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1116546256
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:J._Clifford_Wallace dbr:Harvard_Law_Review dbc:United_States_labor_case_law dbr:Writ_of_certiorari dbr:Warren_Beatty dbr:Abood_v._Detroit_Board_of_Education dbr:U.S._LEXIS dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbr:California_Proposition_32 dbr:Free_rider_problem dbr:California_Proposition_75_(2005) dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_the_Roberts_Court dbr:Ninth_Circuit dbc:United_States_public_employment_trade_union_case_law dbr:SEIU dbr:9th_Cir. dbr:Justice_Breyer dbr:Right_to_Work dbr:Justice_Alito dbr:Erwin_Chemerinsky dbr:First_Amendment dbr:Westlaw dbr:California_Teachers_Association dbr:Justice_Kagan dbr:L._Ed._2d dbc:United_States_Free_Speech_Clause_case_law dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment dbr:First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:United_States_constitutional_law dbr:Collective_bargaining dbr:Certiorari dbr:Gray_Davis dbr:Janus_v._AFSCME dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_California dbc:Right_to_work dbc:2012_in_United_States_case_law dbr:Morrison_England dbr:Service_Employees_International_Union dbr:Agency_shop dbr:Justice_Ginsburg dbr:Arnold_Schwarzenegger dbr:California_ballot_propositions dbr:California_special_election,_2005 dbr:F.3d dbr:Michael_C._Dorf dbr:Harris_v._Quinn dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:Justice_Sotomayor dbr:E.D._Cal. dbc:Service_Employees_International_Union_litigation
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n5:infco20101210107 n15:2011_10_1121 n17:10-1121 n19: n20: n21:10-1121c4d6.pdf n23: n14: n25:scholar_case%3Fcase=11942047881597926307
owl:sameAs
yago-res:Knox_v._Service_Employees_International_Union,_Local_1000 n18:m2C7 freebase:m.011jm33h wikidata:Q18151100
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Italic_title dbt:Reflist dbt:Use_mdy_dates dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Portal_bar dbt:US1stAmendment dbt:Ussc
dbp:dissent
Breyer
dbp:docket
10
dbp:joindissent
Kagan
dbp:joinmajority
Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
dbp:lawsapplied
dbr:First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
dbp:oralargument
n15:2011_10_1121
dbp:oyez
n17:10-1121
dbp:parallelcitations
172800.0
dbp:prior
25920.0
dbp:uspage
298
dbp:usvol
567
dbp:arguedate
0001-01-10
dbp:argueyear
2012
dbp:case
Knox v. Service Employees International Union,
dbp:courtlistener
n20:
dbp:decidedate
0001-06-21
dbp:decideyear
2012
dbp:fullname
Knox et al. v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000
dbp:holding
The case is not moot, the First Amendment does not permit a public-sector union to impose a special assessment without the affirmative consent of a member upon whom it is imposed.
dbp:justia
n14:
dbp:litigants
Diane Knox v. Service Employees International Union
dbp:majority
Alito
dbp:otherSource
Supreme Court
dbp:otherUrl
n21:10-1121c4d6.pdf
dbo:abstract
Knox v. Service Employees International Union, 567 U.S. 298 (2012), is a United States constitutional law case. The United States Supreme Court held in a 7–2 decision that Dianne Knox and other non-members of the Service Employees International Union did not receive the required notice of a $12 million assessment the union charged them to raise money for the union's political fund. In a tighter 5–4 ruling, the court further held that the long-standing precedent, the First Amendment requirement that non-union members covered by union contracts be given the chance to "opt out" of special fees was insufficient. Setting new precedent, the majority ruled that non-members shall be sent notice giving them the option to opt into special fees.
dbp:concurrence
Sotomayor
dbp:googlescholar
n25:scholar_case%3Fcase=11942047881597926307
dbp:joinconcurrence
Ginsburg
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Knox_v._Service_Employees_International_Union,_Local_1000?oldid=1116546256&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
20361
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Knox_v._Service_Employees_International_Union,_Local_1000