Search for: "J. C."
Results 9601 - 9620
of 19,485
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Apr 2012, 6:17 pm
Cir. 1960) (Fahy, J., dissenting) (“[H]ad a request for en banc hearing of this case been made before the [panel] heard it, or even before the [panel] decided it, such a hearing might reasonably have been granted because of the obvious importance of the case. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 3:45 am
Although we held in Hill that the state constitutional right of privacy “creates a right of action against private as well as government entities” (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 20), we also explained that “[j]udicial assessment of the relative strength and importance of privacy norms and countervailing interests may differ in cases of private, as opposed to government, action. [read post]
8 Aug 2008, 12:27 pm
" Id. at 126-27 (Breyer, J., concurring) (internal quotation marks omitted). [read post]
2 Feb 2018, 6:41 am
In that case, Raymond J. [read post]
6 Aug 2010, 8:15 pm
Sims, 471 U.S. 159, 178 (1985) (internal quotation marks deleted); see J. [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 9:10 am
United States (1967), 389 U.S. 347, 361, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (Harlan, J., concurring). [read post]
18 Aug 2012, 5:31 am
Amerson, 483 F.3d 73, 85 (2d Cir. 2007) (in addition to the collection of the DNA sample from a probationer, determining that "[t]here is ... a second and potentially much more serious invasion of privacy occasioned by the DNA Act" because the "analysis and maintenance of [offenders'] information in CODIS ... is, in itself, a significant intrusion") (citation omitted) and Kincade, 379 F.3d at 841-42 (en banc) (Gould, J., concurring) (suggesting the retention of a… [read post]
5 May 2007, 6:36 am
" Gates, 462 U.S. at 265 (White, J., concurring in the judgment); see United States v. $92,422.57, 307 F.3d 137, 145 (3d Cir. 2002); see also United States v. [read post]
28 Jul 2007, 10:14 am
" Thornton, 541 U.S. at 625 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment). . . . [read post]
13 Jul 2007, 3:55 pm
App. at 463-64, 642 S.E.2d at 306-07 (Humphreys, J., dissenting). [read post]
6 Sep 2007, 1:30 pm
” Burger, 482 U.S. at 718 (Brennan, J., dissenting, but noting no disagreement with the Court’s “general rule”). [read post]
20 Apr 2007, 7:25 am
April 17, 2007): According to Plaintiff Charles J. [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 6:27 am
., has previously been disclosed in open Congressional hearings, the report of the national commission on 9/11 and even the 2007 memoir of George J. [read post]
26 Aug 2009, 6:08 am
Ed. 2d 416 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring); United States v. [read post]
11 Nov 2011, 10:16 am
’”) (quoting Katz, 389 U.S. at 360 (Harlan, J., concurring)). [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 6:27 am
., has previously been disclosed in open Congressional hearings, the report of the national commission on 9/11 and even the 2007 memoir of George J. [read post]
24 May 2013, 8:12 am
BROWN, J., concurring: Emphasizing the Geneva Convention’s “strong mandatory language,” Op. 8, the panel’s opinion rejected Al Warafi’s proposed “functional” test in favor of the District Court’s “legal conclusion that the identification requirements of Article 24 constitute a sine qua non for protected status under Article 24,” Op. 7. [read post]
1 May 2011, 6:39 am
Kincade, 379 F.3d at 843 (Reinhardt, J., dissenting) (discussing concerns about the “profound social effects” of “allowing the government to collect and maintain private information about the intimate details of our lives”)). [read post]
22 May 2007, 3:39 am
., at 103 (KENNEDY, J., concurring); Summers, supra, at 704-705. [read post]
30 May 2018, 1:43 pm
To exercise any of these rights, or to inquire further about our Privacy Policy, please contact our Data Privacy Officer, John J. [read post]
