Search for: "LAWS v. DAVIS" Results 2761 - 2780 of 6,273
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jul 2015, 4:30 am by INFORRM
The latest episode of the UK saga “and what do we do with data retention laws” has been issued by the English High Court, with its judgement in the case David Davis and Ors  v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 2092 (Admin). [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 2:37 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  CTRL-C and CTRL-V are considered sacred symbols. [read post]
19 Jul 2015, 4:28 pm by INFORRM
The two lead claimants, David Davis MP and Tom Watson MP, were represented by Liberty. [read post]
18 Jul 2015, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
In a very rare outcome, in the case of R (Davis and ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2015] EWHC 2092 (Admin) the Divisional Court declared that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) is inconsistent with European Union law and therefore is “disapplied”, although the Court suspended the effect of its order until after 31 March 2016. [read post]
17 Jul 2015, 3:38 am by Andres
David Davis MP, Tom Watson MP and Others v the Secretary of State for the Home Department Today, the High Court found against the Government in David Davis’s and Tom Watson’s joint legal challenge to the Government’s emergency surveillance legislation. [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
Previously, he served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 5:00 pm by Kent Scheidegger
  This opinion goes a very long way toward cutting back the expansive definition of "testimonial" statements - and therefore the range of evidence excluded by the Confrontation Clause - that had been stated in Davis v. [read post]
4 Jul 2015, 4:40 pm by Steve Kalar
  Nothing more patriotic for the Fourth of July than a case upholding core constitutional rights (and a remarkable article advocating for greater justice in our system of criminal law and procedure).United States v. [read post]