This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The company it started as in 2013 is not the company it is today. In fact, as I described in my very first post about Casetext , its original vision was a crowdsourced caselaw library that its users would edit and annotate and then have other users upvote or downvote the annotations. Casetext Adds Crowdsourced Q&As.
The company it started as in 2013 is not the company it is today. In fact, as I described in my very first post about Casetext , its original vision was a crowdsourced caselaw library that its users would edit and annotate and then have other users upvote or downvote the annotations. Casetext Adds Crowdsourced Q&As.
Based on my reading of the caselaw, the Fourth and Eighth Circuits broadly follow this approach. Based on my reading of lower court opinions, to date, courts in the Third Circuit also seem to follow the case-by-case approach. However, it was sometimes not as clear as the caselaw of other circuits.”
That increases the government’s ability, and specifically, in many cases, law enforcement ability to watch people, to watch list people, to bring the light weight of the criminal justice system and the carceral system down on people. And with that comes power, right? Is storing that information a violation of privacy? FOX40 (Sep.
Let’s Make a Deal I interviewed to join the Harvard Law Library and manage the project in late 2013, about a year after Nik, Daniel and Prof. Most legal tech startups make bold declarations about public interest, access to justice and democratizing the law when it suits them. Caselaw books waiting to be scanned.
Let’s Make a Deal I interviewed to join the Harvard Law Library and manage the project in late 2013, about a year after Nik, Daniel and Prof. Most legal tech startups make bold declarations about public interest, access to justice and democratizing the law when it suits them. Caselaw books waiting to be scanned.
It was unveiled nationally in 2013. It’s been used nationally since 2013. What we see over time is that the risk levels, and the risk recommendations have become more stringent between the time that that risk tool was first started in 2012, and 2013. I have been trying since 2013, to get this information.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content