Search for: "U.S. v. Roa*" Results 3021 - 3040 of 4,799
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Nov 2019, 5:00 am by Jed Rubenfeld
But the category of “hate speech” has almost no purchase in American law, because a lot of what’s called hate speech is in fact the expression of opinion, and U.S. law has always deemed it better to let people express their opinions, no matter how repugnant, than to let governmental actors dictate which opinions are permitted. [read post]
5 Nov 2010, 9:32 am by Cyrus E. Phillips IV
State Farm Mutual, 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).An example of elements (1) and (2) of this four-part test for proof of “Arbitrary and Capricious” Agency Action is CRAssociates, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Apr 2010, 9:45 am by David
I’m being a bit ridiculous, but when you consider that U.S. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2020, 9:00 pm by Rodger Citron
” Chief Justice Roberts then moved on to Justice Kagan.Cards Close to the Vest: Questioning by Justices Gorsuch and KavanaughMuch has been made of the fact that President Trump’s appointees, Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh, did not agree in Bostock v. [read post]
21 Mar 2023, 4:40 am by Phil Dixon
Search warrant for digital devices in electronic threats case was properly tailored to the defendant’s property and established a nexus between the crime under investigation and the items to be seized; denial of motion to suppress affirmed U.S. v. [read post]
27 Oct 2013, 9:55 pm by Ken White
Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419, 91 S.Ct. 1575, 1578, 29 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971), quoting Carroll v. [read post]
9 Nov 2017, 9:04 am by Jason Rantanen
[v] In the sample, there were 16,739 unique word stems in the first claims of the 1905 non-provisionals. [read post]
18 May 2009, 10:35 am
The second decision reminds us that eDiscovery abuse sanctions can survive summary judgment, and is followed by two authentication cases (one of which is a criminal matter, but each of which pays some degree of homage to Magistrate Judge Grimm's decision in Lorraine v Markel American Ins.), and a decision discussing the standards of a federal district court's review of a U.S. [read post]