Search for: "Kerr v. U.s.*"
Results 81 - 100
of 203
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Feb 2015, 5:00 am
. in Hahn v. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 10:24 pm
In CollegeSource v. [read post]
10 Feb 2015, 9:43 pm
., United States v. [read post]
4 Feb 2015, 10:33 pm
United States v. [read post]
30 Jan 2015, 12:35 am
See United States v. [read post]
9 Jan 2015, 9:45 am
See Groh v. [read post]
7 Jan 2015, 10:52 am
Kerr 14-460Issue: (1) Whether, after this Court's decision in New York v. [read post]
18 Dec 2014, 8:18 am
See Terry v. [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 4:27 am
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument today in Elonis v. [read post]
30 Nov 2014, 9:36 pm
In an essay in the New York Times Magazine on Elonis v. [read post]
22 Oct 2014, 8:23 am
The defendants in United States v. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 12:43 pm
See United States v. [read post]
24 Aug 2014, 10:55 pm
In Gonzales v. [read post]
31 Jul 2014, 7:54 am
Usually, the case-or-controversy requirement shows up in appellate review by requiring that the appellant have Article III standing to appeal–the very defect that proved fatal to the Prop. 8 proponents in the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Hollingsworth v. [read post]
30 Jul 2014, 12:01 am
” Morrison v. [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 2:52 pm
§ 2510(9) as: (a) a judge of a United States district court or a United States court of appeals; and (b) a judge of any court of general criminal jurisdiction of a State who is authorized by a statute of that State to enter orders authorizing interceptions of wire, oral, or electronic communications; That definition tells you what judges can issue wiretap orders — for example, Article III district and circuit judges but not magistrate judges — but it doesn’t tell you the… [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 12:14 pm
See United States v. [read post]
3 Jul 2014, 4:13 am
In the case of “Aunt Sally v. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 8:47 am
The Supreme Court made this clear in United States v. [read post]
11 Jun 2014, 4:32 pm
” What about Smith v. [read post]
