Search for: "Garner v. Smith" Results 21 - 40 of 154
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 May 2021, 2:01 pm by Shea Denning
Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (officer acted reasonably in ramming his bumper into suspect’s vehicle to terminate high-speed chase that lasted for six minutes over ten miles and during which the suspect’s car hit a police car); Smith v. [read post]
7 Apr 2021, 12:23 pm by Adam Faderewski
• David Edward Garner, 71, of League City, died January 18, 2021. [read post]
18 Oct 2020, 4:59 pm by INFORRM
IPSO has published a number of rulings and resolutions statements since our last Round Up: 01293-20 Garner v Mail Online, 4 Intrusion into grief or shock (2019), No breach – after investigation 00996-20 A Woman v thesun.co.uk, 1 Accuracy (2019), 2 Privacy (2019), No breach – after investigation Last Week in the Courts On 12 October 2020 there was a CMC in MTVIL, the phone hacking litigation against News Group Newspapers, Various Claimants v News Group… [read post]
10 Feb 2020, 3:09 pm by Orin S. Kerr
  The constable walks up to John Smith, announces Smith's arrest, and physically grabs Smith. [read post]
24 Apr 2019, 2:23 pm by John Elwood
So instead, let me say a little bit about one case the court has repeatedly rescheduled and that has garnered some attention: Doe v. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 2:33 am by Patti Waller
E. coliO157:H7 is one of thousands of serotypes Escherichia coli.[1] The combination of letters and numbers in the name of the E. coli O157:H7 refers to the specific antigens (proteins which provoke an antibody response) found on the body and tail or flagellum[2] respectively and distinguish it from other types of E. coli.[3] Most serotypes of E. coli are harmless and live as normal flora in the intestines of healthy humans and animals.[4]  The E. coli bacterium is among the most… [read post]
10 Oct 2018, 12:40 pm by Kevin LaCroix
John Reed Stark Earlier this week, media reports circulated that this past spring Google had exposed the private data of thousands of the Google+ social network users and then opted not to disclose the issue, in part because of concerns that doing so would draw regulatory scrutiny and cause reputational damage. [read post]