Yahoo Italia Ricerca nel Web

Entra

Risultati di ricerca

  1. www.oyez.org › cases › 2010Davis v. United States | Oyez

    21 mar 2011 · Davis v. United States. Media. Oral Argument - March 21, 2011; Opinion Announcement - June 16, 2011; Opinions. Syllabus ; Opinion of the Court (Alito)

  2. www.supremecourt.gov › oral_arguments › audioOral Argument - Audio - Supreme Court of the United States

    Oral Argument - Audio. Davis v. United States Docket Number: 09-11328 Date Argued: 03/21/11 Play Audio: Media Formats: MP3: Download:

  3. www.supremecourt.gov › oral_arguments › argument_audioArgument Audio - Supreme Court of the United States

    Oral Argument Date Argued; 22-6389 Brown v. United States: 11/27/23: 22-721 McElrath v. Georgia: 11/28/23: 22-666 Wilkinson v. Garland, Att'y Gen. 11/28/23: 22-859 SEC v. Jarkesy: 11/29/23: 23-124 Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. 12/04/23: 22-800 Moore v. United States: 12/05/23: 22-193 Muldrow v. St. Louis: 12/06/23

  4. www.oyez.org › cases › 1961United States v. Davis | Oyez

    United States v. Davis. Media. Oral Argument - March 28, 1962 (Part 2) Oral Argument - March 28, 1962 (Part 1) Opinions. Syllabus ; View Case ; Petitioner United States .

  5. Immagini

    • [Unites States v. Davis] Oral Argument | C-SPAN.org
    • Davis v. Washington Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube
    • United States v. Davis, No.18-431 - Art Lien, Courtartist

    Mostra tutto

  6. www.c-span.org › video[Unites States v. Davis] Oral Argument | C-SPAN.org

    26 apr 2019 · The Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Davis. The case concerns whether using a weapon while committing a crime is a “crime of violence” requiring a harsher penalty.

    • 60 min
    • 1410

  7. www.aclu.org › cases › united-states-v-quartavious-davisUnited States v. Quartavious Davis | American Civil Liberties...

    5 mag 2015 · The court granted the ACLU permission to participate in oral argument to address the cell phone tracking issue. After that argument, a three-judge panel of the court held that the government violated the Fourth Amendment when it obtained the cell phone location records without a warrant.