Search for: "Identification Devices v. United States"
Results 181 - 200
of 351
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jan 2015, 12:35 am
See United States v. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 7:22 am
Kriesel, supra(government's retention of the defendant's blood sample was `reasonable under the circumstances’ because the government needed the sample to ensure the accuracy of future DNA identifications).U.S. v. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 5:30 am
Underwriters, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Jan 2015, 9:45 am
United States v. [read post]
9 Jan 2015, 4:31 am
It has now been confirmed that two companies in the United States have potentially been the subject of cyber-terrorism. [read post]
4 Jan 2015, 4:46 pm
V, VI, IX, and XIV,NJ Constitution 1, paras.1, 10, and 2], and requirements stated in Miranda v. [read post]
18 Dec 2014, 9:17 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
12 Nov 2014, 6:23 am
State v. [read post]
1 Nov 2014, 3:09 am
Sawyer[2](The Steel Seizure Case), 343 U.S. 579 (1952)· United States v. [read post]
19 Sep 2014, 5:30 pm
The key law relied upon in the case, the Alien Tort Statute, requires, after a 2013 Supreme Court decision called Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum, that plaintiffs show that the matter “touch and concern” the United States in order for the case to proceed here. [read post]
16 Sep 2014, 3:13 pm
More, “a patentee’s obligation to apportion damages only to the patented features does not end with the identification of the smallest salable unit if that unit still contains significant unpatented features. [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 5:46 am
State v. [read post]
1 Sep 2014, 10:33 am
This law as amended was the copyright law of the United States from July 1, 1909 through December 31, 1977. [read post]
17 Aug 2014, 1:22 pm
While many of these provisions are consistent with the laws of Bangladesh, several key provisions are drawn from either the law of the United States or norms included in a number of international treaties (only some of which have been ratified or incorporated into the laws of either the United and or Bangladesh). [read post]
29 Jul 2014, 4:21 pm
This is hardly bulk collection in the sense that worries Glenn Greewald and others, but would seem to be precluded by a law that restricts collection to the identification of individual accounts or people. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 5:06 am
United States v. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 11:55 am
June. 13, 2013), holding essentially that, since those meanies on the United States Supreme Court aren’t letting plaintiffs sue generic manufacturers, we’ll change Alabama common law and let them sue someone else. [read post]
15 Jul 2014, 6:36 am
United States, 714 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 1:15 pm
However, since the New Streamlined Procedures are now available to U.S. taxpayers residing in the United States, the 2014 OVDP is intended to be used by taxpayers who have serious concerns with criminal violations. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 9:23 am
Since those companies were located outside the United States, the US used criminal prosecutions of their executives, who were then arrested as they happened to set foot in the country, often in transit at US airports. [read post]
