Search for: "US v. Pineda"
Results 1 - 20
of 146
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 May 2022, 9:27 am
Pineda v. [read post]
20 Jul 2021, 12:11 pm
EthiopiaDoe I v. [read post]
24 Feb 2020, 8:25 am
Steven Kwartin, P.A., 189 So. 3d 964, 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (quoting Pineda v. [read post]
10 Jan 2019, 8:13 am
Under US v. [read post]
30 Oct 2018, 2:27 pm
In United States v. [read post]
19 Sep 2017, 7:48 am
OfficeMax California Supreme Court Rules That a ZIP Code is Personal Identification Information — Pineda v. [read post]
22 Jun 2017, 6:35 am
People v. [read post]
9 Apr 2017, 4:33 pm
Spain Spanish businessman Luis Pineda, who was found guilty of sending 57 libellous tweets, has been ordered to send a series of apol [read post]
30 Jul 2016, 8:49 am
(Compare with Pineda v. [read post]
6 May 2016, 10:42 am
Citing Rodman v. [read post]
1 May 2016, 6:30 am
Case citation: Yershov v. [read post]
22 Apr 2016, 2:21 pm
” Pineda v. [read post]
24 Mar 2016, 12:00 am
Pineda v. [read post]
11 Jan 2016, 7:00 am
OfficeMax California Supreme Court Rules That a ZIP Code is Personal Identification Information — Pineda v. [read post]
7 Jan 2016, 1:51 pm
Nordstrom California Supreme Court: Retail Privacy Statute Doesn’t Apply to Download Transactions – Apple v Superior Court (Krescent) CA Court Confirms that Pineda v Williams-Sonoma (the Zip-Code-as-PII Case) Applies Retrospectively — Dardarian v. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
Most warnings concern a product’s use – that if you use (or don’t use) the product in a certain way, you are likely to get hurt; and if you follow the warning, you won’t. [read post]
27 Oct 2014, 4:01 pm
Facebook California Supreme Court Rules That a ZIP Code is Personal Identification Information — Pineda v. [read post]
29 May 2014, 3:53 pm
., Pineda), where courts say that even a zip code along with demographic information is enough to identify someone. [read post]
22 Mar 2014, 11:11 am
“California Supreme Court Rules That a ZIP Code is Personal Identification Information — Pineda v. [read post]
11 Dec 2013, 10:50 pm
The Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals held (2-1) that the trial court had committed reversible error. [read post]