Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which involved the question of within what period of time must a suspect arrested without a warrant (warrantless arrests) be brought into court to determine if there is probable cause for holding the suspect in custody.
A Belgian court convicted the founders of the once high-flying speech recognition software company Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products of fraud, writing the final chapter in the story of a company ...
This category includes court cases decided by the federal and state courts of the United States that deal with government regulation of commercial speech. Freedom of speech portal Pages in category "United States commercial speech case law"
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant.
Hence, justifying restricting speech in those cases. Alvarez remained in legal trouble due to allegations that he defrauded the government by falsely receiving health insurance benefits. He was convicted of misappropriation of public funds, grand theft , and insurance fraud in 2009 and sentenced to five years in state prison, [ 37 ] and was ...
Two title insurance companies with ties to Lakewood signed off on loans for a real estate investor who later pleaded guilty for participating in a $165 million mortgage fraud conspiracy, federal ...
Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (2014), is a U.S. Supreme Court case involving public employee's freedom of speech rights. Edward Lane sued Steve Franks for unfairly firing him, out of retaliation for sworn testimony Lane gave during a federal fraud case. [1]
The new case was presented in front of the entire Ninth Circuit panel on December 15, 2011, in San Francisco. [11] The result of the hearing was published April 10, 2012, and states that the court chose a narrow interpretation of the CFAA, holding that the phrase "exceeds authorized access" in the CFAA does not extend to violations of use ...