§Why CasetextPricing

Sams v. Windstream Communications, Inc. et al

RESPONSE re Notice

5 Cited authorities

  1. Yeary v. State

    289 Ga. 394 (Ga. 2011)   Cited 13 times
    In Yeary, 289 Ga. 394, 711 S.E.2d 694, the criminal defendant appealed her DUI conviction and challenged the trial court's pretrial ruling that the source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000 was neither material nor relevant and could not be the subject of a production request under the Uniform Law.

  2. Hubbard v. Myspace Inc.

    788 F. Supp. 2d 319 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that a search warrant issued by Georgia state magistrate was valid under the SCA before the 2009 amendments; "[i]f a federal warrant would have sufficed under Section 2703 despite having been issued by a magistrate judge who could not have presided over a trial of the investigated offense, the same no doubt can be said of an ‘equivalent State warrant’ "

  3. Booker v. Power

    Civil Action Number 3:09cv759 (E.D. Va. May. 7, 2010)   Cited 6 times

    Civil Action Number 3:09cv759. May 7, 2010 MEMORANDUM OPINION RICHARD WILLIAMS, Senior District Judge This matter is before the Court on the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants TDS Telecommunications Corporation ("TDS") (Docket Nos. 3 7), Dominion Virginia Power ("Dominion") (Docket No. 5), and the United States of America ("United States") and Special Agent Mark Bertsch ("Bertsch") of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) (collectively referred to as "Government Defendants") (Docket No. 18)

  4. Sams v. YAHOO!, Inc.

    Case Number CV-10-5897-JF(HRL) (N.D. Cal. May. 18, 2011)   Cited 3 times

    Case Number CV-10-5897-JF(HRL). May 18, 2011 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports. [Re: Docket No. 28] JEREMY FOGEL, District Judge Defendant Yahoo! Inc. ("Yahoo!") moves to dismiss the first amended complaint ("FAC") of Plaintiff Fayelynn Sams, ("Sams"), pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The FAC asserts the following claims: (1) violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510, et

  5. General Motors Corp. v. State

    357 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 13 times
    In General Motors, it is unclear whether General Motors was actually the subject of the investigation, which raises concerns not present in this case.