Search for: "Public Citizen v. Department of Justice"
Results 81 - 100
of 2,075
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jun 2022, 9:13 am
” The dispute before the court in Carson v. [read post]
19 Dec 2022, 7:08 am
The question before the justices is whether private citizens can owe a fiduciary duty to the public and therefore be guilty of honest-services fraud. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 3:01 pm
In the government’s latest assault on civil rights, California Attorney General Kamala Harris has announced a new policy last month that the California Department of Justice (“CADOJ”) will only be issuing its annual reports on wiretaps as locked pdfs– which would significantly limit the public’s ability to view the information. [read post]
5 May 2010, 12:21 pm
Department of Defense. [read post]
25 Sep 2015, 4:23 pm
The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice has delivered his non-binding legal opinion in Schrems v. [read post]
19 Mar 2024, 6:24 am
Yesterday's Murthy v. [read post]
20 Apr 2006, 10:04 am
Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWHC 2818 (Admin) (High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court, before Collins J), Secretary of State for the Home Department v. [read post]
20 Mar 2019, 12:48 pm
With a three-justice plurality opinion, a two-justice concurrence in the judgment and two dissents, Washington State Department of Licensing v. [read post]
5 Feb 2011, 10:08 am
Justice BhandariThe Supreme Court in State of Uttranchal v. [read post]
22 May 2023, 5:01 am
In Mitchell v. [read post]
2 Feb 2016, 11:29 am
” The Privacy Shield aims to address the requirements set out by the European Court of Justice in its Oct. 6, 2015 ruling by imposing stronger obligations on companies, providing stronger monitoring and enforcement by the DOC and Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and making commitments regarding access to information on the part of public authorities. [read post]
10 Feb 2010, 11:31 pm
Lawsuit for libel brought against public official turns on whether the statements objected to were uttered with “actual malice”Shulman v Hunderfund, 12 NY3d 143In the words of Justice Smith, “In this action for libel by a public figure, the record does not clearly and convincingly show that the statements in question were made with "actual malice," as required by New York Times Co. v Sullivan (376 US 254 [1964]). [read post]
14 Jun 2021, 12:44 pm
In a case decided last week (Van Buren v. [read post]
20 Mar 2024, 1:03 pm
Arizona Department of Revenue (White Mountain Apache Tribe v. [read post]
26 Sep 2019, 4:34 pm
Time is moneyDoyle v. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 10:08 am
The foundation filed cert-stage and merits-stage amicus briefs in support of the government in Department of Commerce v. [read post]
17 May 2017, 1:30 pm
The question before the justices was whether the state of Texas could deny undocumented students the right to a free public education that U.S. citizens and legally admitted immigrants received. [read post]
6 Nov 2014, 11:44 am
United States), that the Justices were simply tired from the first argument, in Yates v. [read post]
21 Apr 2012, 12:13 pm
In Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. [read post]
17 Nov 2010, 3:49 pm
Moreover, [Francis v. [read post]
