Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has opened a review into whether special counsel Jack Smith’s team skirted any guidelines in carrying out their ...
An abuse of process is the unjustified or unreasonable use of legal proceedings or process to further a cause of action by an applicant or plaintiff in an action. It is a claim made by the respondent or defendant that the other party is misusing or perverting regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action.
United States v. Google LLC is an ongoing federal antitrust case brought by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) against Google LLC on January 24, 2023. [2] The suit accuses Google of illegally monopolizing the advertising technology (adtech) market in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.
Conformity with Brady is a continuing obligation of prosecutors. Some prosecuting attorney offices have adopted and created specialized procedure and bureaus to meet their burden. [17] Pitchess v. Superior Court [18] is the source for a "Pitchess motion" in California. Such a motion can be made by a criminal defendant to discover complaints ...
The Department of Justice has indicted former President Trump on dozens of counts of mishandling classified documents. The indictment has renewed protests from GOP lawmakers and allies of the ...
The feds swooped in with a four-count complaint against Mangione in the cold-blooded killing of Brian Thompson Thursday — scuttling Manhattan prosecutors’ hope of getting the first bite at the ...
Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort.Like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally (and maliciously) instituting and pursuing (or causing to be instituted or pursued) a legal action (civil or criminal) that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution.
Prosecutors have asked judges to stop using the term to refer to an unintentional error, and to restrict its use to describe a breach of professional ethics. E. Norman Veasey, the chief justice of Delaware Supreme Court, answered one such request in 2003 by noting the term's extensive use in rulings over the past 60 years. "We believe it would ...