Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ]
Davis v. United States, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), a per curiam opinion; Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule) Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (invocation of the right to counsel under Miranda) Davis v. United States, 495 U.S. 472 (charitable deductions under §170 of the Internal Revenue Code ...
Case name Citation Date decided Sykes v. United States: 564 U.S. 1: June 9, 2011 Talk Am., Inc. v. Mich. Bell Tel. Co. 564 U.S. 50: June 9, 2011 DePierre v. United States
Fort Davis National Historic Site is a United States National Historic Site located in the unincorporated community of Fort Davis, Jeff Davis County, Texas.Located within the Davis Mountains of West Texas, the historic site was established in 1961 to protect one of the best remaining examples of a United States Army fort in the southwestern United States.
United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929) – Denied an applicant entry to the United States because of her pacifist beliefs; United States v. MacIntosh, 283 U.S. 605 (1931) United States v. Bland, 283 U.S. 636 (1931) United States ex rel. Polymeris v. Trudell, 284 U.S. 279 (1932) Hansen v. Haff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934) Kessler v. Strecker ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233 (1973), was a 1973 United States Supreme Court case concerning criminal procedure and collateral attacks on criminal convictions. The majority opinion, authored by then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist, held that when claims of unconstitutional jury discrimination are brought on postconviction collateral review, they are subject to the timeliness ...
The attorney general says the law and facts were on his side — but perhaps not the politics of the case.