Search for: "People v. Riley" Results 241 - 260 of 460
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Feb 2024, 7:50 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Governing people to people relations is a very different thing from state undermining personhood by criminalizing dancing. [read post]
11 Jul 2021, 4:55 pm by INFORRM
, heard 15 and 16 June 2021 (Julian Knowles J) Riley v Murray, heard 10 to 12 M [read post]
26 Mar 2014, 1:36 pm
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to address the issue in Wurie and a similar case, People v. [read post]
24 Aug 2020, 1:10 pm by
However, it is crucial to remember that the police need search warrants to search the cell phones of people they arrest, as per the Supreme Court ruling in Riley v. [read post]
25 Sep 2016, 5:09 pm
 The Supreme Court has held firm that there is a strong boundary between privacy and security, upholding the strength of the Fourth Amendment with limitations (Riley v California) . [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 6:21 am by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC
The petitioner sought to suppress all of the evidence seized around the time of the arrest, relying on the decision in Riley v. [read post]
29 Aug 2023, 9:59 am by Ezra Rosser
Lee, Reflections on Place and People from Within (PDF) M. [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 12:53 am by INFORRM
Two energy companies have also been fined £250,000 by the ICO for bombarding people and businesses on the ‘do not call register’ with unsolicited marketing calls. [read post]
17 May 2020, 4:39 pm by INFORRM
On 10 May 2020 the Prime Minister announced a plan for a gradual ease of the lock down and a new phase which will see more businesses reopening and people gradually returning to work. [read post]
23 Jul 2022, 9:51 am by Benjamin Pollard
Chris Riley and Susan Ness argued that modularity is the best possible path toward creating a global internet with platform accountability. [read post]
29 Jul 2019, 10:00 am
The phrase was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. [read post]