Skip navigation

Search

39120 results
Page 1472 of 1956. « Previous | 1 2 3 4 ... 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 ... 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 | Next »

, this action fell under the protection of attorney-client privilege. The Court adopted a four-part test to reach its decision. (1) For the privilege to apply, information given must be from an employee ...
to accommodate the prisoners' religious rights without creating additional security concerns. The Supreme Court, however, sided with the district court and found no First Amendment violation. They held: 1 ...
of appeals for the Eighth circuit affirmed, 663 F.2d 778. The Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that: 1) Prior Supreme Court decisions on related issues have held that punitive damages can be awarded ...
motioned for dismissal. The district court held: 1) The prisoner's Eighth Amendment action accusing the warden of encouraging violence by guards stated a claim even though he did not use "triggerwords ...
Article • May 15, 2007
that he had sent $1 as a token amount to circumvent AHCC mail policy. Garcia Filed a law suit against the Department Of Corrections in 1999. The case was settled in 2000. The gift subscription ban ...
Article • May 15, 2007
, and defendants appealed. The Supreme Court held that the prisoners First Amendment rights were not violated because: 1) certain constitutional rights are necessarily limited by incarceration including ...
Article • May 15, 2007
Filed under: Police, Property
. The Second Circuit held the suit could not be frivolous until it was determined "(1) whether the procedures set forth in City Rule section 12 meet the requirements of due process," and "(2) even ...
Article • May 15, 2007
, the district court denied Nieto's motion. Nieto appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that NRS 176.055(1) provides that "a defendant is entitled to credit against a sentence for time ...
and court costs against the city. Isdell was represented by Bensonetta Tipton-Lane and Amy M. Totenberg, both of Atlanta. See: Isdell v. McBerry, USDC ND GA, Case No. 1:89CV1951-HPW. ...
court reversed on the following claims: (1) The court held that restrictions on the prisoner's duties as a clerk in the prison law library to assist other prisoners in preparing their legal materials ...
" because (1) the governor failed to supervise the officers who conducted the armed assault; (2) the governor knew of the significant danger that would attend the use of force; and (3) there was a nexus ...
Article • May 15, 2007
; the plaintiffs also alleged that the six men arrested with them were not forced to submit to strip searches. The plaintiffs filed a complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), seeking $1 million each ...
Article • May 15, 2007
Filed under: Searches, Cell Searches
vacated and remanded, holding: 1) "[B]ecause a prisoner does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his prison cell; the fourth amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches does not apply ...
Article • May 15, 2007
. Plaintiffs, Dwayne's divorced parents, sued four deputies, LA County and the Sheriff Department alleging: 1) the deputies used excessive force in hobbling Dwayne; 2) the department's own procedures note ...
Article • May 15, 2007
constituted denial of access to the courts. A U.S. District Court held in favor of the prison officials. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding: 1) Although prison officials' actions in treating Appellant ...
that prisoners have no vested property or liberty rights to either obtain or maintain employment. Accordingly, the district court's order was affirmed. See: Dupont v. Sanders, 800 F.2d 8 (1 Cir. 1986). ...
Article • May 15, 2007
restitution order. Both the Employee's Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1056 (d)(1), and the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S.C.§ 401(a)(13)(A), have anti-alienation clauses that provide benefits ...
Article • May 15, 2007
Supreme Court that neither a state nor its employees acting in their official capacities were "persons" under § 1983, because 1) the statutory language of § 1983 does not support the assertion ...
on February 24, 1971, directing the jail to bring conditions up to federal standards by September 1, 1971. On February 14, 1972, jail detainees filed a motion for a show cause order for the jail to explain why ...
Article • May 15, 2007
the order for confinement, holding: 1) Under 229A, specific provisions exist for confined and non-confined persons. The significant difference between the provisions is that for non- confined persons ...
Page 1472 of 1956. « Previous | 1 2 3 4 ... 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 ... 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 | Next »