Search for: "Cheek v. State"
Results 221 - 240
of 425
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Oct 2013, 5:15 am
EEOC v. [read post]
9 Oct 2013, 5:15 am
EEOC v. [read post]
5 Oct 2013, 5:08 pm
The oral swab sought here represents a minimally intrusive mean of obtaining a DNA sample by simply using a cotton swab in Defendant's cheek lining. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 6:57 am
In last week’s case (Abbott v. [read post]
21 Aug 2013, 2:30 pm
Cheek v. [read post]
18 Jul 2013, 10:45 am
USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1110 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding no chance of success of state-law claim against publisher of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders); Hardin v. [read post]
13 Jul 2013, 3:02 am
People v. [read post]
11 Jul 2013, 7:21 pm
In a recent case involving a constitutional challenge to seizing a person's DNA without his consent, the United States Supreme Judicial Court, in Maryland v. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 11:27 pm
-Earl Warren: Brown v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 11:24 am
I focus here only on the Court’s invalidation of Section 3 of DOMA in United States v. [read post]
14 Jun 2013, 9:16 am
Ever since County of Riverside v. [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 6:36 am
Under Cheek v. [read post]
11 Jun 2013, 9:01 pm
Last week, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Maryland v. [read post]
9 Jun 2013, 1:55 pm
Impact of Maryland v. [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 3:40 pm
Maryland v King, United States Supreme Court (6/3/13)Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal LawAfter his arrest on first- and second-degree assault charges, King was processed through a Wicomico County, Maryland, facility, where personnel used a cheek swab to take a DNA sample pursuant to the Maryland DNA Collection Act (Act), which authorizes officers to collect DNA samples from persons charged with violent crimes. [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 12:32 pm
Static Control Components, in which it will consider who has the right to bring a false advertising claim under the federal Lanham Act; and United States v. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 12:54 pm
I have only skimmed Maryland v. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 12:15 pm
A few months ago, this blog featured a discussion on Maryland v. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 10:41 am
On June 3, 2013, the United States Supreme Court in Maryland v. [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 5:31 pm
As for the cheek swab, you may view it as a de minimis intrusion that pales in comparison to state mandates that clearly-innocent children receive, in the name of public health, much more invasive, risky, and repeated vaccination shots. [read post]
