Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that "[a]lthough an affidavit supporting a search warrant may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information and some ...
In United States law, the Aguilar–Spinelli test was a judicial guideline set down by the U.S. Supreme Court for evaluating the validity of a search warrant or a warrantless arrest based on information provided by a confidential informant or an anonymous tip. The Supreme Court abandoned the Aguilar – Spinelli test in Illinois v.
Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981), was a Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a company (in this case, the Upjohn company) could invoke the attorney–client privilege to protect communications made between company lawyers and non-management employees. [ 1] In doing so, the Court rejected the narrower control group ...
Fighting against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's effort to halt a series of court-ordered depositions, former agency employees turned whistleblowers are again arguing to the Supreme Court of ...
The work-product doctrine is more inclusive than attorney–client privilege.Unlike the attorney–client privilege, which includes only communications between an attorney and the client, work product includes materials prepared by persons other than the attorney themselves: The materials may have been prepared by anybody as long as they were prepared with an eye towards the realistic ...
UT takes fight to keep athletes' sexual misconduct records private to Texas Supreme Court. The UT Tower on the first day of the spring semester Monday, Jan. 9, 2023 in Austin. Five years after the ...
DeVillier v. Texas, 601 U.S. 285 (2024), was a case that the Supreme Court of the United States decided on April 16, 2024. [1] [2] The case dealt with the Supreme Court's takings clause jurisprudence. Because the case touched on whether or not the 5th Amendment is self-executing, the case had implications for Trump v.
Texas' top appeals lawyer, who would usually argue the state's cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, notably did not join Paxton in bringing the election suit. The high court threw it out .