Search for: "Jones v. United States" Results 2061 - 2080 of 3,760
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Nov 2013, 12:30 pm by Matt Danzer
Abdo points to two concurring opinions in Jones v. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 3:04 am
Jones, [2006] UKHL 16—one of the few domestic cases to consider the crime of aggression. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 12:11 am by Kevin LaCroix
The first of these standards, enunciated in June 2011 by Southern District of New York Judge Barbara Jones in the SEC v. [read post]
6 Feb 2011, 2:14 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
 And so the Fifth Circuit struck the GFSZA down.The Fifth Circuit’s opinion was subsequently vindicated by the Supreme Court in United States v. [read post]
30 May 2019, 8:11 am by John Elwood
United States, 18-7739. [read post]
6 Jan 2021, 6:00 am by Peter Briccetti
Garland is a judge serving on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 1:26 am by CMS
  However in so far as they seek to declare it “null” and of “no effect” he submits that they went too far and where they cannot go. 14:16: Lord Keen QC notes that this principle is consistent with extensive authority and which Sir James Eadie QC will address in due course in further detail. 14:14: Lord Keen QC notes that the Inner House accepted that the principle of non-justiciability exists in public law and that the question of whether something is… [read post]
7 Dec 2015, 3:04 am by Amy Howe
United States applies retroactively, noting that the Court “may well be on the verge of doing something it hasn’t done in decades (and of settling a messy, messy circuit split in the process). [read post]
16 Mar 2010, 11:40 am by Lawrence Solum
Davis School of Law, author of How Racial Profiling in America Became the Law of the Land: United States v. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 5:00 am by Bexis
  A bunch of plaintiffs from the United Kingdom sought to sue in the United States, despite their drugs being subject to an entirely different regulatory framework. [read post]
23 Sep 2012, 5:28 am by Lee Davis
The data, apparently obtained with a phone company’s help, led to a warrantless search of the motor home and the seizure of incriminating evidence.The majority opinion held that there was no constitutional violation of the defendant’s rights because he “did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data given off by his voluntarily procured pay-as-you-go cellphone.”The panel drew a distinction between its ruling and a ruling by the Supreme Court last January in United… [read post]