Search for: "Stephens v. Smith"
Results 101 - 120
of 830
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jun 2021, 2:46 pm
U.S. defendants can request access to the evidence, but there is, as Judge Stephen Smith has detailed, increasing deference in federal courts to so-called "law enforcement privilege"—the withholding of information about evidence-gathering techniques during a trial—can extend to software and prevent its examination for errors. [read post]
23 Jun 2021, 2:46 pm
U.S. defendants can request access to the evidence, but there is, as Judge Stephen Smith has detailed, increasing deference in federal courts to so-called "law enforcement privilege"—the withholding of information about evidence-gathering techniques during a trial—can extend to software and prevent its examination for errors. [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 12:07 pm
The decision in United States v. [read post]
18 Jun 2021, 1:20 pm
Joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh in full and Justice Stephen Breyer in part, Barrett expresses an openness to revisiting Smith in an appropriate case, but critically, she challenges the “prevailing assumption” that overruling Smith should mean adopting a “categorical strict scrutiny regime” for incidental burdens on religious practices. [read post]
18 Jun 2021, 5:10 am
Smith, should be overruled. [read post]
17 Jun 2021, 10:04 am
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court, in an opinion that was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. [read post]
9 Jun 2021, 12:22 pm
• Roger V. [read post]
9 Jun 2021, 12:22 pm
• Roger V. [read post]
6 Jun 2021, 4:17 pm
The Guardian has a piece The case in courtroom 18D: Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case set for momentous 12-week trial. [read post]
1 Jun 2021, 7:50 am
Smith, Ikuta, Bennett, R. [read post]
22 Apr 2021, 4:27 pm
Co., 33 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. 1993); Smith v. [read post]
15 Apr 2021, 7:13 am
Supporters argued that the theory had roots in Smith itself (specifically its explanation of the earlier Sherbert v. [read post]
14 Apr 2021, 4:07 pm
Over-vigorous application of a statutory offence might be greeted in similar terms to those employed by the Lord Chief Justice in the Twitter Joke Trial case (Chambers v DPP), an appeal from conviction under s.127 of the Communications Act 2003: “The 2003 Act did not create some newly minted interference with the first of President Roosevelt’s essential freedoms – freedom of speech and expression. [read post]
22 Mar 2021, 6:31 am
And in Smith v. [read post]
19 Mar 2021, 8:35 am
In Norton v. [read post]
12 Mar 2021, 1:11 pm
Gans summarizes the stakes of Brnovich v. [read post]
24 Feb 2021, 4:28 pm
Dr Robin Callender Smith is Honorary Professor of Media Law at Queen Mary, University of London’s Centre for Commercial Law Studies. [read post]
22 Feb 2021, 10:17 am
Citing Smith v. [read post]
8 Feb 2021, 6:49 am
In Fulton v. [read post]
[Eugene Volokh] Do Critics of Police Have the First Amendment Procedural Protections That Nazis Get?
22 Jan 2021, 8:26 am
Forte, Andrew Geronimo, Raymond Ku, Stephen Lazarus, Kevin Francis O'Neill, Margaret Christine Tarkington, Aaron H. [read post]