Search for: "Kerr v. State" Results 941 - 960 of 1,523
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Nov 2011, 6:01 am by Rosalind English
For Lord Kerr, it was an indispensable prerequisite that there must be some means of ascertaining the reason that the right to legal assistance has been waived [53]. [read post]
6 Feb 2022, 12:59 am by Orin S. Kerr
United States is a common target of attack by originalist Justices and originalist scholars. [read post]
4 Jul 2016, 1:39 am by Katharine Lammiman
Supreme Court The appeal will be heard today by a panel of five judges comprising Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr and Lord Toulson. [read post]
13 Jul 2016, 4:03 am by SHG
After the 9th Circuit’s en banc ruling in United States v. [read post]
30 Dec 2015, 3:29 pm by Venkat Balasubramani
Professor Kerr, who is cited by the court, explains in depth and offers thoughts on the consequences of this. [read post]
5 Oct 2009, 7:08 am
Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corp. (09-54). [read post]
17 Aug 2017, 6:17 pm by Inside Privacy
Al Kassar, 660 F.3d 108, 118 (2d Cir. 2011). [4] United States v. [read post]
6 Nov 2019, 3:55 am by Edith Roberts
At Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy blog (via How Appealing), Orin Kerr offers some reactions to the oral argument. [read post]
10 Apr 2019, 4:52 pm by INFORRM
In finding for the Claimant, Mitting J stated “…The impression given by the postings to the ordinary reader was a significant and distorting overstatement of what had in fact occurred. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 3:23 pm by Gritsforbreakfast
Others much more qualified than I have analyzed the debate, so see these folks for much meatier, more lawyerly analyses:Orin Kerr, Volokh Conspiracy: "Reflections on the Oral Argument in United States v. [read post]
17 May 2011, 7:20 am by Nabiha Syed
United States ex rel. [read post]
20 Mar 2025, 10:45 pm by Orin S. Kerr
  With that said, that practice would seem to run afoul of Coolidge v. [read post]
12 Sep 2008, 4:07 pm
The district court had dismissed the case on the grounds that the auditor, who received relevant information from an employee of the State of Louisiana, was not the "original source" of the information on which the claim was based. [read post]