Search for: "Smith v. United States Department of Justice"
Results 521 - 540
of 779
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jan 2016, 4:38 am
On their side was a 1979 Supreme Court ruling (Smith v. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 2:09 pm
Smith was disbarred, as recommended by the hearing officer. [read post]
7 Jan 2021, 1:28 pm
State v. [read post]
5 May 2018, 7:43 am
Saturday’s Lawfare podcast featured a recording of last Thursday’s Georgetown Law panel on norms governing relations between the White House and Justice Department. [read post]
23 Sep 2022, 5:01 am
The second period represents a time of flux for privilege as the executive branch wrestles with the fallout from Watergate and attempts to interpret and apply United States v. [read post]
28 Jun 2024, 4:40 am
Last Friday, the United States Supreme Court decided Smith v. [read post]
26 Jul 2022, 5:01 am
That was the holding of United States v. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 5:01 am
(Docket Report) District Court N D California: False advertisement through third parties may constitute false marking, but facts must be pled with particularity: United States of America, ex. rel., et. al. v. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 4:40 pm
His lawyers will argue Federal Court Justice Anthony Besanko fell into legal error by finding the former corporal was complicit in the murder of four unarmed Afghan prisoners. [read post]
2 Aug 2020, 4:13 pm
United States The Committee to Protect Journalists issued an alert for the New York City Police Department which should refrain from subpoenaing journalists’ phone records or other information that could reveal sourcing. [read post]
24 Jun 2016, 10:18 am
United States, 15-8629, and Beckles v. [read post]
1 Dec 2022, 5:14 pm
" United States v. [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 4:50 am
The justices are evidently taking a close look. [read post]
19 Jan 2021, 10:43 am
In United States v. [read post]
4 Jul 2022, 2:56 pm
The High Court has ruled that security and intelligence services must obtain “prior independent authorisation” to access individuals’ communication data from telecommunications companies (Liberty v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 1630 (Admin)). [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 7:30 am
First, it could seek preclearance from the Department of Justice, which proceeds in a more expedited fashion in that the Department has 60 days to object to the change. [read post]
8 Jan 2014, 2:34 pm
Placing substantial pressure on such exercise can be akin to "prohibiting" it--or so the Court held in the Sherbert line of cases, anyway (the Reagan Justice Department disagreed (see pp. 17-19) and would have required an actual prohibition). [read post]
9 Jan 2023, 5:00 am
California (1973) (obscenity) United States v. [read post]
6 Dec 2023, 6:05 am
Rohl, Ray Smith, and L. [read post]
18 Nov 2020, 3:15 am
”); United States v. [read post]
