Search for: ". Kerr"
Results 4961 - 4980
of 6,254
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Apr 2010, 9:58 am
In the Los Angeles Times, James Oliphant and Richard Serrano noted the professional connections that the three leading candidates shared, while Orin Kerr made light of their similar credentials. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 8:19 pm
(Orin Kerr) Readers who were interested in the Lori Drew case, and the question of when computer use counts as criminal “unauthorized access” to a computer, will want to read this New Jersey state case from last fall: State v. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 6:44 am
checked my "ask me" and the torrent of narky, personal questions i've just received leads me to think i might give the q&a rest for a while an old but fascinating article on "the (mostly) true story of helvetica and the new york city subway" http://bit.ly/cb1v5L /cc @Brettskies orin kerr has a very funny post at the volokh conspiracy on "obama’s diverse shortlist" http://bit.ly/9Pk1pM linda greenhouse writes that justice stevens was … [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 4:24 am
Orin Kerr, for examples, notes the hugely divergent backgrounds of the frontrunners, Elena Kagan would also bring notable educational diversity to the Court. [read post]
10 Apr 2010, 10:24 pm
(Orin Kerr) With Justice Stevens having announced his retirement, all eyes now turn to President Obama’s purported short list: Elena Kagan, Merrick Garland, and Diane Wood. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 7:41 am
(Orin Kerr) An excellent column. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 12:33 pm
John Wesley Hall, who maintains FourthAmendment.com, had, just the other day, proclaimed himself a huge fan of Scholar, an opinion that was echoed by Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 3:02 am
Kerr (George Washington University - Law School) (Virginia Law Review, GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 496) has posted Ex Ante Regulation of Computer Search and Seizure on SSRN. [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 8:39 pm
(Orin Kerr) Go ahead and vent. [read post]
4 Apr 2010, 10:18 pm
(Orin Kerr) Over at FourthAmendment.com, John Wesley Hall suggests that Google Scholar is a very helpful way to find and link to caselaw online. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 8:19 pm
But Kerr, who often has clashed with homebuilders, hasn't ruled out doing just what they fear. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 5:56 pm
(Via Orin Kerr.)blog advertising blog advertising [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 11:42 am
(Orin Kerr) Brian Leiter’s new “scholarly impact” rankings, measuring impact from 2005–2009, are here. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 7:06 am
At The Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr previews the upcoming argument in City of Ontario v. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 5:06 am
I applaud the efforts of my co-conspirators, Patrick at Popehat, Orin Kerr at Volokh Conspiracy (obviously, Kerr is a much more experienced conspirator than the rest of us), David Lat and Kash at Above the Law , Doug Mataconis at Below the Beltway, and Walter Olson at Overlawyered, who was there in reserve. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 3:40 am
His source inside the press office was anonymous.And Orin Kerr @ The Volokh Conspiracy comes in to say that his source inside the White House counsel's office is also pissed. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 9:15 pm
(Orin Kerr) In light of David K.and Ilya’s posts on the constitutionality of the health care mandate, let me propose a better question to ask. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 3:21 pm
(Orin Kerr) I wouldn’t normally post about job openings, but I’ve seen two particularly cool openings recently for those interested in electronic privacy law: First, the national office of the ACLU has announced that they’re hiring for a new position of Director of the ACLU’s Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology, based in New York. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 10:54 am
Before I even start, they are already trying to squeeze me out.As noted earlier, Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy has also confirmed my appointment with his own sources.And, The New York Times has likewise succeeded in confirming the appointment. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 9:58 am
Opinion here.UPDATE: Orin Kerr, at Volokh, puts a finer point on the ruling: the US did not defend the legality, so, strictly speaking, the Judge was ruling on the "state secrets" defense. [read post]
