Search for: "Jones v. Cloud" Results 41 - 60 of 170
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 May 2019, 6:00 am by Guest Blogger
  In this blog post, I explain why this matters.First, setting the record straight on NFIB is important to counter a campaign on the right to delegitimize the result in that case, thereby clouding the legality and legitimacy of the ACA itself. [read post]
13 Apr 2019, 9:17 am by Lev Sugarman
Sugarman shared a new Department of Justice white paper on the Cloud Act. [read post]
18 Jul 2018, 10:40 am by NBlack
Last month, the United States Supreme Court considered the latter situation in Carpenter v. [read post]
18 Jul 2018, 10:40 am by NBlack
Last month, the United States Supreme Court considered the latter situation in Carpenter v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 4:00 am by Walter Dellinger
Richard Nixon was so named in the Watergate indictment, and that inclusion was sustained by Judge John Sirica and defended by the United States in United States v. [read post]
13 May 2018, 3:06 pm by Schachtman
No one should be fooled other than Mother Jones. 1See, e.g., Ramos v. [read post]
Unless the players are engaging in sexual activity as a spectator sport and have lots of witnesses and video to back up what really happened at the time, there’s a good chance that faulty memories, selective amnesia, broken hearts, vengeance, angry spouses (more on that in a bit), and other circumstances will cloud the issue of whether the behavior was welcome. [read post]
Unless the players are engaging in sexual activity as a spectator sport and have lots of witnesses and video to back up what really happened at the time, there’s a good chance that faulty memories, selective amnesia, broken hearts, vengeance, angry spouses (more on that in a bit), and other circumstances will cloud the issue of whether the behavior was welcome. [read post]
18 Mar 2018, 5:08 pm by INFORRM
Pogowasright notes the development of the CLOUD Act, a bipartisan bill proposing the regulation of cross-border data access. [read post]
29 Dec 2017, 7:34 am by Ben
In the UK in FAPL v BT [2017] Mr Justice Arnold concluded that the High Court has the jurisdiction to make an order against an access provider that would require the ISP to block access not to a website but rather streaming servers giving unauthorised access to copyright content - 'live' blocking. [read post]