Search for: "In re: Application to Issue Subpoena"
Results 301 - 320
of 716
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Mar 2024, 10:59 am
This has included minor changes to respond to news events, depreciating guides completely when they're no longer applicable in modern security plans, and massive rewrites when technology has changed. [read post]
24 Nov 2010, 3:04 pm
Although he had previously signed such warrants, his opinion in In re Application For Historical Cell Site Data (available here) reversed course because “important developments in both technology and caselaw rais[e] serious constitutional doubts about such rulings. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 1:37 pm
Maybe that’s a way to frame the takings issue?] [read post]
22 Dec 2015, 7:13 am
<> Nothing We're Tracking Today (click for the complete Energy & EPA announcements)(c)Waste Information & Management Services, Inc. [read post]
1 Dec 2012, 9:08 am
Wiggins, 279 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2012) (quoting C.R.C.P. 45 as permitting subpoenas to request ESI); People v. [read post]
21 Dec 2015, 8:33 am
<> Nothing We're Tracking Today (click for the complete Energy & EPA announcements)Waste Information & Management Services, Inc. [read post]
22 Dec 2015, 7:27 am
<> Nothing We're Tracking Today (click for the complete Energy & EPA announcements)Waste Information & Management Services, Inc. [read post]
21 Dec 2015, 5:19 am
<> Nothing We're Tracking Today (click for the complete Energy & EPA announcements)(c)Waste Information & Management Services, Inc. [read post]
12 Jan 2015, 6:59 am
’”’ In re Englebrecht, supra. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 8:39 am
Oliver North's convictions were reversed based on a Kastigar issue after he was compelled to testify before Congress. [read post]
14 Jul 2014, 10:43 am
“We’re very anxious to get Mr. [read post]
20 Jun 2007, 7:52 am
In short, the court had to resolve whether the applicable data was (1) the type routinely disclosed to 3rd parties, in which case there was no 'reasonable expectation of privacy' and a subpoena was sufficient authorization, or (2) the contents of communications fully protected by the 4th Amendment, which requires the government to obtain a probable cause warrant. [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 4:32 pm
His evidence was important to the issues of whether she understood the trust and was acting freely on the basis of independent legal advice. [read post]
25 Sep 2009, 11:12 am
That, of course, changed with electronic communications; you can capture them while they’re being transmitted or while they’re in storage (which we’ll get to in a minute). [read post]
9 Sep 2020, 12:15 pm
The court’s reasoning: In this particular case, the validity of the underlying subpoena was questionable. [read post]
17 Aug 2020, 9:05 pm
The firm issued subpoenas in May 2019 to NICD and other parties requesting the information and later filed an application to the High Court. [read post]
27 May 2009, 1:23 pm
In re Hannaford Bros. [read post]
18 Sep 2020, 4:11 pm
Decisions this Week United StatesSeattle Police Department Subpoena for Protest CoverageDecision Date: July 31, 2020 The Seattle King County Superior Court granted an application by the City of Seattle’s Police Department (SPD) for a subpoena to obtain unpublished photos and video footage of protesters from five news media outlets. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 1:47 pm
The 9/11 Commission didn’t highlight this issue. [read post]
21 Jul 2015, 10:41 pm
But they’re still warrants, as required by both the Fourth Amendment and the statute. [read post]
