Search for: "People v. Locke"
Results 281 - 300
of 1,866
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Aug 2009, 6:27 am
A corollary is that people who are asked to consent often agree because the alternative is to be locked out of their residence for a couple of hours before the search even begins. [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 3:18 pm
In the recent case of People v. [read post]
20 Jan 2012, 11:39 am
[Post by Venkat Balasubramani] State v. [read post]
24 Apr 2009, 4:44 am
In Chimel v. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 9:10 am
The Supreme Court will spend the first half of this week hearing the appeals in three related cases: R (MA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, R (A), and R (Rutherford). [read post]
29 Jun 2009, 2:14 pm
v=8HJbGSHtFYQ&feature=related [read post]
10 Aug 2016, 11:28 am
In Swindol v. [read post]
10 Sep 2018, 8:10 am
In the 2013 decision Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. [read post]
28 Oct 2020, 9:01 pm
The elected Arizona legislature (and Chief Justice John Roberts’s dissent), like the Rehnquist concurrence in Bush v. [read post]
18 Feb 2023, 9:45 am
V. v. [read post]
14 Jun 2021, 8:56 am
We must end our addiction to the criminalization of poverty, mass incarceration, and endless construction of jails and prisons to lock up more people, disproportionately people of color. [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 11:15 am
This episode is a follow-up podcast to Episode 9, Epic v. [read post]
18 Jul 2008, 6:54 pm
By Eric Goldman Sandler v. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 1:15 pm
Florida and Sullivan v. [read post]
26 Jul 2018, 3:09 pm
Today, in Troester v. [read post]
26 Jul 2018, 3:09 pm
Today, in Troester v. [read post]
22 Apr 2009, 2:01 pm
Supreme Court issued the opinion in Arizona v. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 3:17 pm
The government currently spends millions locking up people whose detention serves no purpose, squandering taxpayer dollars in a time of fiscal austerity. [read post]
8 Mar 2013, 8:45 am
The ACLU has challenged these policies in Rodriguez v. [read post]
9 Aug 2016, 8:17 am
Locke Missouri suggests that the Court’s 2004 decision in Locke v. [read post]
