Search for: "Goldstein "
Results 3761 - 3780
of 5,875
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jan 2012, 11:52 am
Marietta lawyer Melvin Goldstein, who has practiced extensively before the court, stated he expects a result no different than before. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 11:03 am
[Link] Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox is seeking electrical IP attorneys with 1-4 years of experience to work at their Washington, DC office. [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 1:19 pm
Goldstein says in general, the coverage of Jones is bad and misleading, with none of the pieces correctly characterizing the ruling and its limits. [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 12:17 pm
Wrote Goldstein, "The government probably conducts fifty times as many warrantless searches a day as warrant-based searches. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 9:00 pm
Goldstein ignored us. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 9:00 pm
Goldstein ignored us. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 12:25 pm
Goldstein suggests reporters focused on the warrant question “because the public knows what that means. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 11:31 am
Tom Goldstein, founder of SCOTUSblog, has a long entry today on the SCOTUS decision this week in Jones v. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 10:03 am
"Jones confounds the press": Tom Goldstein has this post at "SCOTUSblog. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 8:34 am
Iowa achieved another economic development milestone with a guilty plea by imprisoned California filmmaker Harel Goldstein on charges arising out... [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 7:00 am
Goldstein’s accident. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 7:43 pm
Of course, the origin of omission lies with the prosecution firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, who advertise that they achieve a "gold standard in patent quality. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 5:56 pm
., Alito concurrence, 6.There's no shortage of commentary in the blawgosphere - here are just a few posts: Washington Post: Robert Barnes, Supreme Court Warrants Needed in GPS TrackingSlate: Dahlia Lithwick, US v Jones Supreme Court Justices Alito and Scalia brawl over technology and privacy SCOTUS Blog: Tom Goldstein, Reactions to Jones v. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 3:42 pm
(For readers interested in a more granular analysis, we recommend Tom Goldstein’s post at SCOTUSblog. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 3:37 pm
Tom Goldstein shares my conclusion that there are effectively two majority opinions in this case. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 11:06 am
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Jones, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 3179 (16 December 2011) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Mortgage Express v Butcher & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 18 (24 January 2012) Cook v The Mortgage Business Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 17 (24 January 2012) WHG (International) Ltd & Ors v 32 Red Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 19 (24 January 2012) High Court (Family Division) Galloway v Goldstein [2012] EWHC 60 (Fam) (16 January 2012) NLW v ARC [2012] EWHC 55 (Fam) (13 January 2012) … [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 9:27 am
[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, whose attorneys contribute to this blog, represents the petitioners in this case, but the author of this post is not involved in the case.] [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 9:05 am
(See Margot Kaminski, Paul Ohm, Howard Wasserman, Tom Goldstein, and the terrifyingly prolific Orin Kerr.) [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 9:05 am
(See Margot Kaminski, Paul Ohm, Howard Wasserman, Tom Goldstein, and the terrifyingly prolific Orin Kerr.) [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 7:17 am
At SCOTUSblog, Tom Goldstein explains the ruling this way: I think that the correct way to understand the case is to read it as having two separate majority opinions. [read post]
