Works matching Riley v. California
1
- Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, 2014, v. 10, n. 1, p. 83
- Article
2
- Review of Litigation, 2016, v. 35, n. 1, p. 71
- Article
3
- Cumberland Law Review, 2014, v. 45, n. 1, p. 211
- Article
4
- Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, 2015, v. 2015, n. 2, p. 393
- Article
5
- Boston College Law Review, 2015, v. 56, n. 5, p. 1981
- Article
8
- Cato Supreme Court Review, 2013, p. 307
- Article
9
- Regent University Law Review, 2014, v. 27, n. 1, p. 25
- Lamparello, Adam;
- MacLean, Charles E.
- Article
10
- Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 2014, v. 48, n. 2, p. 507
- Article
11
- Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2015, v. 30, p. 1283
- Article
12
- Minnesota Law Review, 2016, v. 100, n. 4, p. 1689
- Article
13
- University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 2016, v. 18, n. 3, p. 895
- Article
14
- 2014
- Lamparello, Adam;
- MacLean, Charles
- Essay
15
- Texas Tech Law Review, 2015, v. 48, n. 1, p. 133
- Article
16
- ASBU Law Journal, 2024, v. 6, n. 1, p. 829, doi. 10.47136/asbuhfd.1267013
- ÖZATA, Muhammed Hakan;
- TAŞ, Burak
- Article
17
- Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi, 2016, v. 7, n. 24, p. 59
- Article
18
- Brooklyn Law Review, 2015, v. 80, n. 2, p. 463
- Article
19
- Cornell Law Review, 2015, v. 101, n. 1, p. 187
- Article
20
- DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law, 2015, v. 25, n. 2, p. 267
- Article
21
- Capital University Law Review, 2016, v. 44, n. 4, p. 677
- Article
22
- Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 2021, v. 39, n. 3, p. 1061
- Article
23
- Washington University Law Review, 2019, v. 97, n. 2, p. 545
- Article
24
- California Western Law Review, 2015, v. 51, n. 2, p. 263
- Article
25
- Journal of the Missouri Bar, 2015, v. 71, n. 1, p. 34
- Article
26
- Temple Law Review, 2017, v. 89, n. 4, p. 781
- Article
27
- Harvard Law & Policy Review, 2016, v. 10, n. 1, p. 255
- Article
28
- William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 2016, v. 24, n. 3, p. 879
- Article
29
- Penn State Law Review, 2016, v. 121, n. 2, p. 309
- Article
30
- Pace Law Review, 2016, v. 36, n. 3, p. 970, doi. 10.58948/2331-3528.1931
- Article
31
- American Journal of Trial Advocacy, 2016, v. 40, n. 1, p. 69
- Article
32
- Marquette Law Review, 2016, v. 99, n. 3, p. 813
- Article
33
- Case Western Reserve Law Review, 2014, v. 65, n. 1, p. 63
- Article
34
- BYU Journal of Public Law, 2017, v. 31, n. 2, p. 437
- Article
35
- Vanderbilt Law Review, 2016, v. 69, n. 3, p. 585
- Article
36
- St. Louis University Law Journal, 2016, v. 60, n. 4, p. 733
- Article
37
- Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 2014, v. 48, n. 2, p. 319
- Article
38
- Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2017, v. 32, p. 531, doi. 10.15779/Z38GT5FF7R
- Vandenberg, Dustin Taylor
- Article
39
- New England Journal on Criminal & Civil Confinement, 2015, v. 41, n. 2, p. 289
- Article
40
- Bench & Bar of Minnesota, 2019, v. 76, n. 5, p. 10
- LANTERMAN, MARK;
- ROSENBAUM, JAMES
- Article
41
- University of Miami Law Review, 2015, v. 69, n. 3, p. 899
- Article
42
- Florida Bar Journal, 2016, v. 90, n. 10, p. 8
- Article
43
- Texas Law Review, 2020, v. 98, n. 5, p. 953
- Article
44
- Stanford Law Review, 2017, v. 69, n. 1, p. 321
- Article
46
- Journal of Digital Forensics, Security & Law, 2014, v. 9, n. 3, p. 7
- Moore, Jennifer L.;
- Langton, Jonathan;
- Pochron, Joseph
- Article
47
- University of New Brunswick Law Journal, 2018, v. 69, p. 96
- Article
48
- Northwestern University Law Review, 2017, v. 111, n. 2, p. 517
- Article
50
- Thomas Jefferson Law Review, 2018, v. 40, n. 2, p. 171
- Article