Search for: "Smart v. United States" Results 101 - 120 of 1,230
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Aug 2017, 3:14 pm by Kent Scheidegger
  For instance, he might set a criminal free for a reason which has nothing to do with the reliability of the evidence or the justice of the case.Orin Kerr at VC has this post on United States v. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 3:07 am
Copyright Office Seeks Public Comments on Moral RightsThe United States Copyright Office announced it is undertaking “a public study to assess the current state of U.S. law recognizing and protecting moral rights for authors, specifically the rights of attribution and integrity. [read post]
12 Jul 2007, 5:11 am
The Daubert standard is a legal precedent set in  1993 by the United States Supreme Court regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony during legal proceedings. [read post]
11 Nov 2022, 5:00 pm
Amazon Must Surrender Some 4 Million DocsIn a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Seattle Division, Kaeli Garner, and others, sued alleging, in part, as follows:This case is a class action lawsuit arising out of Amazon’s practice of using smart-speaker technology (“Alexa”) to surreptitiously save permanent recordings of millions of Americans’ voices, all without their knowledge or consent. [read post]
12 Jan 2010, 12:06 pm by Andrew Koppelman
The people of the United States have just won a great victory in the war to bring democracy and majority rule to Iraq. [read post]
19 Jul 2017, 4:47 pm by John Floyd
  This was illustrated in a July 10, 2017 decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal in United States v. [read post]
5 Jan 2009, 12:10 am
13 Dec 2007, 5:27 am
Given the parties’ admissions, the district court should not enjoin sales of the SSP to locations outside the United States, and should not enjoin sales of the SSP to resellers who sell to locations outside the United States. [read post]
19 Mar 2007, 6:00 am
His public defender, Eric Vanatta, after asking his client "what the fuck he was thinking" [okay, I added that part], decided to attack the constitutionality of the law, arguing that it violates his client's right to free speech under both the United States and Colorado Constitutions. [read post]