Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
18 U.S.C. § 924(c) contains both an “elements clause” and a “residual clause.” [8] The elements clause defines an offense as a crime of violence if it “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another,” and the residual clause defines an offense as a crime of violence if it, “by its nature, involves a ...
Harrow v. Department of Defense , 601 U.S. ___ (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the 60-day filing deadline for appeals of decisions by the Merit Systems Protection Board is not jurisdictional , so courts have discretion to equitably toll it.
Quartavious Davis is a United States federal legal case that challenged the use in a criminal trial of location data obtained without a search warrant from MetroPCS, a cell phone service provider. Mobile phone tracking data had helped place the defendant in this case at the scene of several crimes, for which he was convicted.
Note: As of August 2024, final bound volumes for the U.S. Supreme Court's United States Reports have been published through volume 579. Newer cases from subsequent future volumes do not yet have official page numbers and typically use three underscores in place of the page number; e.g., Snyder v.
The order from the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals means both federal cases against Trump have now been dropped as he prepares to return to the White House on Jan 20. A federal judge, acting on ...
Davis v. United States , 564 U.S. 229 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States "[held] that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule ". [ 1 ]
Dallas Mavericks forward Anthony Davis (3) brings the ball up court against the Houston Rockets during the second half at the American Airlines Center in Dallas, Texas on Feb. 8, 2025.
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established that the right to counsel can only be legally asserted by an "unambiguous or unequivocal request for counsel." [1] Legal scholars have criticized this case stating that the "bright line" rule established under Edwards v.