Search for: "People v. Leahy" Results 81 - 100 of 168
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jul 2013, 1:41 pm
The other day, I was blogging about tags, and somebody asked what are all the tags. [read post]
3 May 2013, 1:25 pm by Rahul Bhagnari, ACLU
Supreme Court Rules Against Routine Warrantless Blood Tests in DUI Cases: The Supreme Court ruled in our favor in Missouri v. [read post]
2 May 2013, 2:25 pm by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
Paul, as well as a second qui tam complaint pending against the City, in exchange for the City’s commitment to withdraw its appeal in Magner v. [read post]
25 Apr 2013, 4:26 pm by Jennifer Granick
  Artists have legitimate reasons to use existing images beyond just to parody them or comment directly upon them and Cariou v. [read post]
15 Jan 2013, 3:54 pm by Jennifer Granick
  When so many thoughtful people, including former prosecutors, disagree with United States Attorney's conduct in these cases, we need to stop. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 3:28 pm by Amy Wallace
On Tuesday, Bishop, 47, pleaded guilty to one count of capital murder involving two or more people and three counts of attempted murder. [read post]
3 Aug 2012, 12:30 am by Monique Altheim
Top stories today via @btSMU @antigonepeyton # If at first you don’t succeed: Senator Leahy offers breach notification amendments to cybersecurity bill http://t.co/IpJHFIbr # Ediscovery and DataProtection Daily is out! [read post]
2 Jun 2012, 3:05 pm by admin
Leahy, 8 Cal.4th at 607, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663, 882 P.2d 321.12 However, because a published California appellate decision has held that HGN testing is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community, see People v. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 12:06 pm by Ilyse Schuman
The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act (POWADA) (S. 2189) introduced by Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) would explicitly reject the June 18, 2009 Supreme Court decision in Gross v. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 10:35 am by Jeralyn
What it does: The amendment would undo a unanimous Supreme Court decision (United States v. [read post]