Search for: "EVANS v. US " Results 1461 - 1480 of 2,365
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Oct 2020, 4:04 pm by INFORRM
Newspapers Journalism and Regulation IPSO has published a number of rulings and resolutions statements since our last Round Up: 12184-20 Graham v dailystar.co.uk, 1 Accuracy (2019), 2 Privacy (2019), Resolved – IPSO mediation 00804-20 Smith v The Herald, 1 Accuracy (2019), 3 Harassment (2019), 2 Privacy (2019), No breach – after investigation 06575-20 Brown v thesun.co.uk, 1 Accuracy (2019), 2 Privacy (2019), Resolved – directly with publication 02805-20… [read post]
6 May 2013, 10:04 am by Keith R. Fisher
The petition invokes a split in the circuits (most notably with Evans v. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 4:55 am by Jon Hyman
” Hivley now stands in direct contradiction to the opinion of the 11th Circuit in Evans v. [read post]
30 Sep 2022, 1:57 pm by Hyemin Han
  Stewart Baker sat down with Alan Rozenshtein and Adam Candeub for a deep dive of the NetChoice v. [read post]
22 Nov 2014, 3:33 am by SHG
  Even in its most extreme, People v. [read post]
15 Feb 2015, 4:24 pm by INFORRM
Judgments The following reserved judgment in media law cases are outstanding: R (Evans) v HM Attorney-General, heard 24 and 25 November 2014 (UK Supreme Court) Rufus v Elliott, heard 10 December 2014 (McCombe and Sharp LJJ and Mitting J) OPO v MLA, heard 9 and 20 January 2015 (UK Supreme Court) Murray v Associated Newspapers, heard 21 January 2015 (Longmore, Ryder and Sharp LJJ) Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd, heard 4… [read post]
28 Aug 2022, 5:57 am by Evan M. Levow
Supreme Court established a four-part test for evaluating speedy trial claims in 1972’s Barker v. [read post]
6 Aug 2007, 11:51 am
Although the Information Tribunal take pains to point out that their decision should not be seen as setting any precedents, in conjunction with previous decisions, Ministry of Defence v Information Commissioner and Rob Evans does help to clarify the situation somewhat (albeit that the typo in article 1 of the decision is particularly confusing (referring to "below" when the subsequent text makes it clear that it should be "above")).In general, 3 exemptions have… [read post]