Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Eleventh Circuit has since vacated this decision pending a rehearing by the Eleventh Circuit en banc. United States v. Davis, 573 Fed. Appx. 925 (11th Cir. 2014). On 5 May 2015, the en banc order upheld the use of the information. [2] On 9th Nov 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear this case on appeal. [3]
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 ...
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.
United States v. Davis may refer to: United States v. Davis, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on tax treatment of divorce settlements; United States v. Davis, an 11th Circuit ruling on the need for a warrant to obtain cell phone location data; United States v. Davis, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the residual clause of the Hobbs Act
A jury trial is scheduled to begin in Delaware on Sept. 30, 2024, according to a court order from Judge Eric Davis, the same Superior Court judge who presided over Dominion’s Fox News suit ...
This file is a work of an officer or employee of the Supreme Court of the United States, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government , the file is in the public domain in the United States.
Inside the centennial time capsule, officials found 15 artifacts dating back to 1924 and earlier, including a film of the 1921 groundbreaking for the memorial, the 1917 Declaration of War and a ...
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 ]