Search for: "Smith v. Carpenter" Results 141 - 160 of 216
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 May 2017, 6:29 am by John Elwood
(relisted after the February 24, March 3, March 17, March 24, March 31, April 13, April 21, April 28, May 11 and May 18 conferences)   Carpenter v. [read post]
24 Nov 2023, 12:47 pm
City of Lewiston, 354 A.2d 154, 167 (Me. 1976); Massachusetts, Carpenter v. [read post]
23 Sep 2021, 2:12 pm by Christopher Tyner
As always, these summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to present. [read post]
21 Jul 2018, 8:07 am by Orin Kerr
The first case is United States v. [read post]
10 Jul 2018, 6:34 am by David Markus
(From this case, it looks like Kavanaugh would have sided with the dissenters in Carpenter.)The Government’s collection of telephony metadata from a third party such as a telecommunications service provider is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment, at least under the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v. [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 1:10 am
Alexander Robinson, and Dale Carpenter. [read post]
8 Jun 2017, 10:36 am by John Elwood
Six-time relist Carpenter v. [read post]
3 Jul 2012, 4:49 am by Adrian Lurssen
Sutherland in Upstart Business Journal/Portfolio.com: Kickstarter Turns Crowdfunding Up To 11 Patton Boggs in Revolution Analytics’ Revolutions: EU court’s SAS ruling conflicts with Oracle v Google McDermott Will & Emery in WSJ’s Corruption Currents: High Tide: From Wal-Mart Testing Corporate Citizenship To Being Unfit For Command Reed Smith on Lenders 360: Why Do Lenders Disdain Bankruptcy Court? [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 4:18 am by Edith Roberts
OnFriday the Supreme Court decided four cases, including a closely watched Fourth Amendment case, Carpenter v. [read post]
20 Jan 2022, 3:00 am by Phil Dixon
Summaries will also be posted to Smith’s Case Compendium, here. (1) Sufficient evidence supported dogfighting convictions; (2) Leading question during State’s direct examination was not error; (3) The trial court did not err by ordering restitution for all the seized animals or by failing to explicitly consider the defendant’s ability to pay, but erred in converting the restitution award to a civil judgment absent statutory authorization State v. [read post]