Search for: "Commonwealth v. Smith"
Results 61 - 80
of 306
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Dec 2021, 6:44 am
Pennsylvania State Capitol BuildingHome of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court In the case of Mallory v. [read post]
5 Jul 2023, 4:30 am
In the case of Hinerman v. [read post]
14 Mar 2007, 10:30 pm
[Smith v. [read post]
31 Oct 2009, 8:14 am
” Smith v. [read post]
7 Nov 2007, 11:32 am
" Smith v. [read post]
29 Jan 2021, 11:28 am
In Smith Mountain Building Supply, LLC v. [read post]
25 Sep 2023, 10:39 am
The law, which was actually on the books in Fort Smith, AR until 1953, effectively outlawed public dancing on Sundays. [read post]
19 Mar 2008, 9:11 am
Procito v. [read post]
14 Apr 2021, 4:07 pm
Over-vigorous application of a statutory offence might be greeted in similar terms to those employed by the Lord Chief Justice in the Twitter Joke Trial case (Chambers v DPP), an appeal from conviction under s.127 of the Communications Act 2003: “The 2003 Act did not create some newly minted interference with the first of President Roosevelt’s essential freedoms – freedom of speech and expression. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 7:57 am
The two Supreme Court cases that comprise the bedrock of legal precedent for the third-party doctrine—Smith v Maryland and United States v Miller—do not apply to cell site location data, the court found: We agree with the defendant…that the nature of cellular telephone technology and CSLI and the character of cellular telephone use in our current society render the third-party doctrine of Miller and Smith inapposite; the digital age has… [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 9:48 am
Smith Download Butterfly-Biles v. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 9:48 am
Smith Download Butterfly-Biles v. [read post]
25 Aug 2011, 9:10 am
A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Arbitration Panel in the matter of Fahs v Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner andamp; Smith, Inc., FINRA-DR Arbitration No. 09-06623 awarded a Connecticut man one hundred percent (100%) of his net out-of-pocket compensatory losses, plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum over a period of approximately three years, together with attorneyandrsquo;s fees of $30,000. [read post]
13 Feb 2011, 7:56 pm
Jerry Jerome Smith v. [read post]
5 Jan 2009, 9:24 pm
See Smith v. [read post]
18 Feb 2022, 10:15 am
Supreme Court’s decision in NFIB v. [read post]
14 Apr 2007, 3:21 pm
The Supreme Court of Canada cited the 3rd edition in its decision in Buschau v. [read post]
22 Aug 2010, 6:54 am
Commonwealth, 26 Va. [read post]
10 Oct 2010, 10:39 am
Commonwealth, 26 Va. [read post]
26 Aug 2009, 9:00 pm
- See Smith v. [read post]
