Search for: "State v. Spies "
Results 281 - 300
of 301
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Aug 2008, 1:57 pm
I have argued that the immunity grant appears constitutionally valid, at least as to a challenge under United States v. [read post]
6 Aug 2008, 10:26 am
Bailey v. [read post]
29 Jul 2008, 6:04 pm
State of Indiana (NFP) Jerry White v. [read post]
9 Jul 2008, 11:06 am
A distressing writeup by a lawyer from the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation Inc. v. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 9:25 am
Other goodies are provided by the totally readable Chris Wadlow ("Bugs, Spies and Paparazzi ... [read post]
29 May 2008, 10:12 am
This all changed when the highest criminal court in Texas ruled in Beeman v. [read post]
1 May 2008, 8:38 am
The precedent is United States v. [read post]
25 Apr 2008, 2:46 pm
Patrick Radden Keefe is the latest to tackle the fascinating case of Al Haramain v. [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 9:23 am
It was taken in January 2008 in the Renfroe v. [read post]
27 Mar 2008, 1:56 pm
[ii] See, e.g., State v. [read post]
19 Jan 2008, 11:58 am
Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony Harris ("Harris") filed suit against Defendants-Appellees Amanda Spies Bornhorst ("Spies")1 and Tuscarawas County, Ohio ("Tuscarawas") (collectively, the "defendants"),2 asserting claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. [read post]
14 Jan 2008, 8:01 pm
(SPI) Professionals, Inc. cites in its latest "blog scare". [read post]
16 Nov 2007, 10:30 am
The case known as Al Haramain v. [read post]
23 Sep 2007, 8:01 am
Some highly experienced law of war experts inside the military would eventually conclude (following the "gap" argument about GC3 and GC4) that they should be treated instead as spies and saboteurs under GC4, but no one so far as I know suggested that they would be POWs, and the White House lawyers did not have the background knowledge really to understand that (the role of David Addington in this debate is unknown to me, but I do wonder). [read post]
23 Aug 2007, 12:43 pm
In Kuvin v. [read post]
15 Aug 2007, 6:43 pm
For example, if the President has already claimed that American citizens are not being spied upon without a warrant, then how could a denial by AT&T that it has disclosed any information to the NSA about American citizens be a state secret? [read post]
14 Aug 2007, 3:06 pm
While the Administration has already been able to quash an ACLU challenge to its post 9/11 secret spying by arguing that no one could actually prove they were spied on, the pending hearing brings together the two cases that experts say have the best chance of overcoming that test and forcing a showdown over the legal merits of the controversial spy program.One, known as Al-Haramain v. [read post]
6 Aug 2007, 12:43 pm
The Al-Haramain v. [read post]
9 Jul 2007, 5:45 am
Soon after they reverse Roe v. [read post]
6 Apr 2007, 8:03 am
State, 2007 Tex. [read post]
