Search for: "DOE V US" Results 1301 - 1320 of 96,172
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Oct 2017, 11:03 am by danny
It does not afford EU citizens fundamental protection. [read post]
26 May 2011, 3:11 pm by Venkat
[It appears Expedia heeded the Ninth Circuit's advice from Doe 1 v AOL. [read post]
12 Mar 2007, 11:46 am
Like Judge Pollack, sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, does here.Hosvoldo Lopez helps to get a car that had been used in an assault out of a parking lot at a Fred Meyers store, and the issue is whether or not probable cause existed to subequently stop him. [read post]
23 Oct 2022, 6:41 pm by Francis Pileggi
Although this short post does not qualify as breaking news, it will be a useful reminder for some: The Delaware Court of Chancery prefers “stockholder” as the term uniformly used in the Delaware General Corporation Law for those owning a corporation, though in the past, especially prior to the 2010 DGCL amendments, there were inconsistent references–and court decisions in the past have not always been scrupulous in observing the distinction. [read post]
2 Feb 2013, 2:19 pm by Jack Pringle
If the classification does not implicate a suspect class or abridge a fundamental right, the rational basis test is used. [read post]
2 Feb 2013, 2:19 pm by Jack Pringle
If the classification does not implicate a suspect class or abridge a fundamental right, the rational basis test is used. [read post]
14 Jul 2022, 9:13 am by Josh Blackman
One of the artifices used in these debates was the line between holding and dicta. [read post]
10 Nov 2006, 2:21 am
The Court of Appeals recently clarified the use of the Sudden Emergency Doctrine in Robinson v. [read post]
24 Mar 2018, 8:20 am by Jonathan H. Adler
Her opinion begins: Appellant John Turner asks us to overrule nearly four decades of circuit precedent holding that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to preindictment plea negotiations. . . . [read post]
28 Dec 2016, 2:11 pm by Jeff Gittins
The Court noted prior case law that condemnation is allowed only if the plaintiff "does not interfere with the rights and use of the defendant's water. [read post]