Search for: "People v David Daniels" Results 221 - 240 of 415
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 May 2015, 9:00 am by Amy Howe
Marshall claim is permissible under Article III so long as the parties consent, comes from this blog’s Ronald Mann, while commentary for this blog comes from Daniel Bussel. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am by Schachtman
It is apparent from epidemiological data that some people can engage in chain smoking for many decades without developing lung cancer. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 5:39 pm by Michael Lumer
Given the widely held belief in the legal community that a GJ's decision not to indict in cases such as these is usually the result of a rigged or deliberately flawed presentation (see, People v. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 5:39 pm by Michael Lumer
Given the widely held belief in the legal community that a GJ's decision not to indict in cases such as these is usually the result of a rigged or deliberately flawed presentation (see, People v. [read post]
21 Feb 2015, 6:55 am by Sebastian Brady
In 2007, Australian David Hicks, who was picked up in 2001 after training with al Qaeda, pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorism; the CMCR voided his conviction and sentence on the grounds that, in Al Bahlul v. [read post]
18 Dec 2014, 6:00 am by Administrator
Sweeney, she said, “Unless your language arts teacher wants to have people speak only when they’ve completely ‘rehearsed’ what to say (as in a play), he will need to allow the children to pause within their turns. [read post]
23 Nov 2014, 12:30 am by Emily Prifogle
The Nation has a review of Danielle Keats Citron's Hate Crimes in Cyberspace (Harvard University Press). [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
 A warning about an inherent risk – a so-called “risk warning” – serves an entirely different purpose.With inherent risks, people are warned so they can decide whether that risk outweighs the benefits that might be gained from using the product. [read post]
29 Oct 2014, 3:41 pm
Nor had the Supreme Court yet ruled in United State v. [read post]
28 Apr 2014, 6:58 pm by Jack Goldsmith
 (David Sanger’s NYT story on Daniel’s statement has good background and analysis.) [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 6:02 am
  The judge notes that the affiant who submitted Attachment B is “Special Agent David Goldkopf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. [read post]
21 Jan 2014, 5:45 am by Mark Graber
  Surveillance practices that seem reasonable in a society in which only one person in every county is authorized to conduct searches may seem unreasonable in a society in which more people in most counties are employed by the government than in any particular business (for a contemporary version of this point, see the wonderful article David Gray and Danielle Citron published in 98 Minnesota Law Review, "The Right to Quantitative Privacy"). [read post]