Search for: "STATE v. DAVIS" Results 3501 - 3520 of 6,177
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Oct 2012, 8:46 am by Jay Perry
By Jay Perry             In a case that is emblematic of the potential problems with digital communication during jury trials, the Tennessee Supreme Court has granted review in State v. [read post]
17 Oct 2012, 8:46 am by Jay Perry
By Jay Perry             In a case that is emblematic of the potential problems with digital communication during jury trials, the Tennessee Supreme Court has granted review in State v. [read post]
16 Oct 2012, 1:22 pm
The University of Iowa and The Board of Regents, State of Iowa v. [read post]
8 Oct 2012, 7:46 am by Stevie Phillips
By Stevie PhillipsIn a unanimous Tennessee Supreme Court opinion handed down on September 26, Chief Justice Wade outlines the historical development of state and federal sentencing guidelines.In short, he observes that the 2005 amendments to Tennessee's 1989 Sentencing Act were passed for the purpose of bringing our sentencing scheme in line with United States Supreme Court sentencing decisions, namely Apprendi and its progeny. [read post]
8 Oct 2012, 7:46 am by Stevie Phillips
By Stevie PhillipsIn a unanimous Tennessee Supreme Court opinion handed down on September 26, Chief Justice Wade outlines the historical development of state and federal sentencing guidelines.In short, he observes that the 2005 amendments to Tennessee's 1989 Sentencing Act were passed for the purpose of bringing our sentencing scheme in line with United States Supreme Court sentencing decisions, namely Apprendi and its progeny.  [read post]
23 Sep 2012, 5:28 am by Lee Davis
”The panel drew a distinction between its ruling and a ruling by the Supreme Court last January in United States v. [read post]
23 Sep 2012, 5:28 am by Lee Davis
The data, apparently obtained with a phone company’s help, led to a warrantless search of the motor home and the seizure of incriminating evidence.The majority opinion held that there was no constitutional violation of the defendant’s rights because he “did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data given off by his voluntarily procured pay-as-you-go cellphone.”The panel drew a distinction between its ruling and a ruling by the Supreme Court last January in United… [read post]