Search for: "Shields v. State"
Results 961 - 980
of 5,102
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Feb 2009, 8:05 am
In another case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld application of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in Kaiser Health Foundation, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Oct 2023, 10:42 am
The court rightly calls this out: the State does not deny that the end goal of the CAADCA is to reduce the amount of harmful content displayed to children…..the logical conclusion [is] that data and privacy protections intended to shield children from harmful content, if applied to adults, will also shield adults from that same content. [read post]
2 Sep 2024, 5:46 am
Pressure on State Officials (Yellow) Likely Not Immune 5. [read post]
20 Jun 2018, 2:33 am
It also stated that assisted return was being pursued. [read post]
10 Feb 2012, 9:40 am
State of New York,What Does It Stand For? [read post]
1 Mar 2024, 4:05 am
The petition (full text) in PFLAG, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Sep 2012, 7:05 am
That's the rule in this case involving domestic violence committed by a former New York State Senator.The case is Giraldo v. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 10:11 am
State v. [read post]
23 Apr 2008, 6:00 am
" United States v. [read post]
23 Oct 2007, 5:38 am
United States v. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 7:43 am
In the case, McFarlin v. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 7:43 am
In the case, McFarlin v. [read post]
Caddo v. Siemens: Microsoft Settlement Covers Downstream Use and No Jurisdiction Over Foreign Parent
24 Sep 2023, 11:55 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
22 Nov 2007, 12:05 am
In Ibrahim v. [read post]
11 Feb 2011, 11:19 am
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 8:35 am
Privacy Shield. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 3:40 am
Viacom states that this method of business only grew after YouTube was bought by Google for $1.65 billion in late 2006.The Section 512(1)(c)(A) issues: Surely YouTube knew what was going on! [read post]
15 Feb 2023, 10:25 am
” The legislative history indicates the law was really aimed at online misinformation, but “the First Amendment’s shielding of hate speech from regulation means that a state’s desire to reduce this type of speech from the public discourse cannot be a compelling governmental interest. [read post]
10 Nov 2023, 8:12 am
The one area where the CJEU has found a surveillance tactic to violate the essence of a right - generalised state access to the contents of communications - is precisely the area which has not presented a significant clash with Member States, as their bulk interception activities have largely been shielded from scrutiny by the CJEU by the general exclusion of national security measures from the scope of EU law. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 5:29 pm
As SCOTUS explains in Plyler v. [read post]
