Search for: "United States v. Jones" Results 1881 - 1900 of 3,382
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 May 2019, 8:11 am by John Elwood
United States, 18-7739. [read post]
23 Sep 2012, 5:28 am by Lee Davis
The data, apparently obtained with a phone company’s help, led to a warrantless search of the motor home and the seizure of incriminating evidence.The majority opinion held that there was no constitutional violation of the defendant’s rights because he “did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data given off by his voluntarily procured pay-as-you-go cellphone.”The panel drew a distinction between its ruling and a ruling by the Supreme Court last January in United… [read post]
7 Dec 2015, 3:04 am by Amy Howe
United States applies retroactively, noting that the Court “may well be on the verge of doing something it hasn’t done in decades (and of settling a messy, messy circuit split in the process). [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 5:00 am by Bexis
  A bunch of plaintiffs from the United Kingdom sought to sue in the United States, despite their drugs being subject to an entirely different regulatory framework. [read post]
26 Feb 2012, 2:47 pm by John Elwood
United States, 11-8146; and Jones v. [read post]
18 Oct 2018, 9:13 pm by Anthony Gaughan
Six decades later, in the case of United States v. [read post]
28 Dec 2022, 2:45 pm by Lawrence Solum
In response to this conundrum, American courts have oscillated between two judicial postures that the United States Supreme Court has found to be constitutionally permissible: (1) the “compulsory deference” method preferred in the 1871 case Watson v. [read post]
20 May 2011, 12:34 pm by Jonathan Zasloff
  Nearly 50% of DaimlerChrysler’s global sales are in the United States, and 2.4% of its total sales are in California. [read post]
9 May 2012, 4:30 am by Stanford Law Review
Alternatively, and more sensibly, the Court may choose to revisit its previous dog sniff cases, United States v. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 6:34 am
  Had Jones been placed in solitary prior to the statute's repeal, he would have been entitled to habeas relief because he would have been in custody in violation of the "laws . . . of the United States. [read post]