Search for: "James v. State" Results 4341 - 4360 of 9,414
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jun 2007, 1:50 pm
At Reuters, James Vicini has this article on the decision, "a defeat for California officials"; David Stout reports here in the New York Times; McClatchy's Michael Doyle has this story discussing the ruling, which affirms passengers' constitutional rights to search-and-seizure protections; at Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr weighs in here on the Brendlin decision, stating "Justice Souter's opinion gets it right". [read post]
11 Mar 2011, 7:53 pm by Orin Kerr
“If James Watt made more law than Lord Coke,” says the author in a moment of unwarranted exhilaration, “then the Wright Brothers outdid James Watt” (p. v); it is hardly convincing proof of this to find the cases on air law referring to such old friends as Gibbons v. [read post]
9 Apr 2018, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
James-Bowen & Ors v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, heard 6-7 Mar 2018. [read post]
12 May 2018, 9:11 am
This symposium explores these and other issues.Keynote Lecture: James V Feinerman, Associate Dean for Transnational Programs, Co-Director, Georgetown Law Asia, and James M. [read post]
29 Oct 2014, 4:16 pm by Amul Kalia
More importantly, it was reportedly frustration with the British resolution of 1785 authorizing the Department of Foreign Affairs to open and inspect any mail related to the safety and interests of the United States that led James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe to write to each other in code.In fact, in the 1999 decision throwing out the government’s export regulations on encryption in EFF’s case Bernstein v. [read post]
26 Mar 2018, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
James-Bowen & Ors v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, heard 6-7 Mar 2018. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 1:54 pm by Mark Walsh
Today’s lone case for argument, Franchise Tax Board of California v. [read post]
5 Feb 2007, 12:04 am
James Phillips BRONX COUNTYCriminal PracticeCourt Has No Authority to Disturb Verdict Under §330.10(1); Appellate Court Not Required to Reverse People v. [read post]