 |
| Find dockets from Federal trial courts. |
|
|
|
|
|
Election 2008
Will There Be A Hollywood Ending To The Dramatic Story Of Clinton Vs. Obama?
by JOHN W. DEAN
Presidential Candidates vs. Hate
Why Obama And McCain Should Repudiate The Messages Of Their Extremist Religious Endorsers
by MARCI HAMILTON
|
|
|
| Real-Time SEC Edgar Filings |
| Enter all or part of the company's name or ticker symbol. You can also search for companies grouped by Standard Industrial Classification codes: |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| US Court of Appeals - Ninth Circuit |
|
- BULL v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO [02/09]
Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Government Law
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action making a Fourth Amendment facial challenge to San Francisco's policy requiring a strip search of all arrestees who were to be introduced into San Francisco's general jail population for custodial housing, denial of summary judgment to defendants based on qualified immunity is reversed where the balance between the need for the strip search policy, due to contraband problems in the jail system, and the invasion of personal rights that the search entailed, weighed in favor of the jail system's institutional concerns. - EFF v. OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE [02/09]
Administrative Law, Communications Law, Government Law
In a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action involving information on discussions between telecommunications carriers and the government over the carriers' potential liability for participating in the National Security Agency's post-9/11 warrantless, electronic surveillance program, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where FOIA Exemption 6 did not protect the information sought because there was a strong public interest in disclosure of the identity of individuals who contacted the government to protect telecommunications companies from legal liability for their role in government surveillance activities. However, the judgment is vacated in part where: 1) the district court did not address FOIA Exemption 3 due to confusion in the parties' summary judgment briefing; and 2) the district court failed to make a fact-specific inquiry regarding the applicability of FOIA Exemption 5. - RICHARD SCHULTZ v. THOMAS BURKE [02/09]
Civil Procedure, Criminal Law & Procedure, Debt Collection, Judgment Enforcement, Securities Law, Sentencing
In an appeal from the district court's denial of appellant's motion to intervene as of right in a securities fraud action, the order is affirmed where appellant was improperly attempting to enforce a restitution order in a parallel criminal action in a manner outside the scope of 18 U.S.C. section 3664(m)(1)(B).
|
|
*PDF Format |
|
|
|
|
|
