Search for: "McDowell v. United States" Results 1 - 20 of 41
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Sep 2014, 1:43 am
I have a short piece in today's Irish Independent on the remarkable legal battle between Microsoft and US prosecutors over access to data on non-US users which is stored outside the US, which has now resulted in a finding that Microsoft is in contempt of court.The Irish Independent doesn't currently include inline links to resources in stories, so for background here are:The Magistrate Judge's original ruling that Microsoft must hand over the data;The opinion of Michael… [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 10:33 am by Legal Talk Network
Supreme Court docket to watch, from the highly publicized Fourth Amendment GPS tracking case in United States v. [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 7:29 am by Pam Brannon
For those of you who have taken Civ Pro, then you’re probably reminded of another case brought against Satan, United States ex rel Mayo v. [read post]
12 Feb 2019, 7:35 am by Steven Cohen
Facts:  This case (CDS Family Trust, et al. v. [read post]
8 May 2016, 7:01 am
As pointed out in the above extract, even in United States the doctrine is currently of doubtful legitimacy. [read post]
29 May 2008, 11:25 pm
Spain, 209 F.3d 713, 715-16 (8th Cir.2000) (adopting continuing seizure approach); United States v. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Beydoun, Electing Islamophobia, (March 6, 2016).Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, Fragmented Oversight of Nonprofits in the United States: Does it Work? [read post]
10 Dec 2012, 4:57 am by Susan Brenner
McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (1921); see also U.S. v. [read post]
16 Jan 2014, 9:57 am by Douglas Jarrett
  This is not viable when viewed in terms of (i) the likely “no-holds barred” opposition from the major cable and telecom services providers, or (ii), as noted by former Commissioner McDowell, the efforts of the United States and other countries resisting the push of many developing nations and autocratic regimes to regulate the Internet under the guise of the ITU’s telecommunications regulatory framework. [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 2:52 pm
§ 2510(9) as: (a) a judge of a United States district court or a United States court of appeals; and (b) a judge of any court of general criminal jurisdiction of a State who is authorized by a statute of that State to enter orders authorizing interceptions of wire, oral, or electronic communications; That definition tells you what judges can issue wiretap orders — for example, Article III district and circuit judges but not… [read post]