Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The defendants claimed the individual defendants in those cases are "jointly and severally liable" with the defendants in this case, and, citing Bouchat v. Champion Prods., Inc. , [ 26 ] argued that the language of 17 USC 504 meant to group together all actions relating to infringement of a given set of works. [ 31 ]
John Doe v. Alberto R. Gonzales (originally filed as Doe v.Ashcroft, renamed Doe v.Gonzalez, and finally issued as Doe v.Mukasey) was a case in which the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Library Connection, and several then-pseudonymous librarians, challenged Section 2709 of the Patriot Act; it was consolidated on appeal with a separate case, Doe v.
Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a private citizen has the right to record video and audio of police carrying out their duties in a public place, and that the arrest of the citizen for a wiretapping violation violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights.
The Los Angeles Police Protective League has filed a lawsuit accusing LAPD Cmdr. Lillian Carranza of improperly accessing the officers' union's records. Lawsuit claims LAPD commander tried to ...
Warren, Taliaferro, and Douglas brought the following claims of negligence against the District of Columbia and the Metropolitan Police Department: (1) the dispatcher's failure to forward the 6:23 am call with the proper degree of urgency; (2) the responding officers' failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically ...
A former security guard is suing the Dallas Police Department over an arrest during which he was beaten and tasered, after being mistaken for a violent criminal with a similar name.. Silvester ...
A former Athens-Clarke police officer has filed a federal lawsuit against the Athens-County government on the grounds he was discriminated against when he was fired in 2021 when he was alleged to ...
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), [1] was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 6–3, that police may not conduct vehicle searches, specifically ones involving drug-sniffing police dogs, at a checkpoint or roadblock without reasonable suspicion. [2]