Search for: "v. JONES"
Results 3721 - 3740
of 9,904
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Mar 2015, 5:02 am
Citing People v Weaver (12 NY3d 433) and United States v Jones (132 S Ct 945}, the Court of Appeals ruled that the State agency's action was a search within the meaning of the State and Federal Constitutions and “did not require a warrant” but “on the facts of this case such surveillance was unreasonable”The decision TLC decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_01735.htmThe Cunningham… [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 3:54 pm
Id. at 443 (Jones, J., dissenting). [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 4:00 am
Superior Court (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1358, 1369–1370 or Jones v. [read post]
1 Mar 2015, 9:01 pm
Riley v. [read post]
1 Mar 2015, 5:56 am
NFL Players Association v. [read post]
28 Feb 2015, 9:04 pm
The oral arguments in King v. [read post]
27 Feb 2015, 1:00 pm
In Yates v. [read post]
26 Feb 2015, 6:40 am
"According to the article by Stephanie Mencimer in Mother Jones, and the flurry of Internet speculation that followed, it’s possible none of the four plaintiffs has been legally affected by having to buy insurance subject to the subsidies involved in the case. [read post]
26 Feb 2015, 6:15 am
Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined her opinion.The opinion is U.S. v. [read post]
25 Feb 2015, 9:30 pm
Wright, Douglas Howland, Tahirih V. [read post]
25 Feb 2015, 8:17 am
InHenderson v. [read post]
25 Feb 2015, 7:23 am
In Henderson v. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 11:30 am
The case of EEOC v. [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 11:27 am
District Court Judge Richard Jones. [read post]
22 Feb 2015, 5:18 pm
Mason Brandstedter v. [read post]
20 Feb 2015, 4:13 pm
” Abraham & Veneklasen Joint Venture v. [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 4:27 pm
This was confirmed in the case of Douglas & ors v Hello! [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 3:25 pm
In the decision under appeal, The motion judge held that it was not plain and obvious that the claim based on Jones v. [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 12:26 pm
” State v. [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 12:26 pm
” State v. [read post]