Search for: "Doe Defendants I through V" Results 6721 - 6740 of 12,270
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 May 2015, 6:53 am by Jeff Welty
Defendants have sometimes contended that if there is a right of locational privacy as suggested in Jones, whether that right is compromised through GPS tracking or through cell site location information is immaterial, and a search warrant based on probable cause is necessary to do either one. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 6:36 am by Daniel Schwartz
Merely because AT&T obtained the medical records through a signed authorization of the Plaintiff does not mean that this information is now confidential. [read post]
25 Jun 2019, 3:37 am by SHG
*Note that the defendant in the case was Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 3:33 pm by John Elwood
§ 1252(a)(2)(D), or whether this determination is a discretionary judgment call unreviewable under Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). [read post]
22 Feb 2008, 7:19 pm
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Terri L. [read post]
20 Sep 2015, 8:10 am
But I would urge her to go further in the same direction. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 1:10 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Indeed, since January 2007, when plaintiff obtained her case files and observed that defendants had performed very little work on her underlying cases, she should have discovered, through the use [*2]of reasonable diligence, the facts supporting liability, including the fact that Radialchoice had been involuntary liquidated (see McGee v Weinberg, 97 Cal App 3d 798, 803, 159 Cal Rptr 86, 89-90 [1979]). [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 4:38 pm by NL
 Chapter V does expressly apply to the Crown but [read post]