TORCH

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (44 total)

• State v. Johnson, 605 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
  …s to what is to be seized.... [T]he particularity requirement is even more stringent where the things to be seized have the presumptive protection of the First Amendment....” United States v. Torch, 609 F. 2d 1088, 1089 (4th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 957, 100 S.Ct. 2928, 64 L.Ed.2d 815 (1980). Although the warrant here listed specific items to be seized (the pornographic video tapes listed in the affidavit), the officers seized all of the video tapes that they determined to be obscene. This allowed…
• Jean v. Nelson, 727 F.2d 957 (11th Cir. 1984)
  …owever, require that the President find that the entry “be detrimental;” presumably, this finding would have to be legitimate and not merely pretextual. . The majority also relies on Narenji v. Civiletti, 617 F. 2d 745 (D.C.Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 957, 100 S.Ct. 2928, 64 L.Ed.2d 815 (1980), for the proposition that the Executive has the power to discriminate against aliens on the basis of nationality. Supra at 978 n. 30. The Narenji court qualified that power, however, by noting that “[s]o long a…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Int'l Union OF Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman Local Union NO. 20, AFL-CIO v. Martin Jaska, Inc., 752 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1985)
  …he contract is ambiguous. Cf. Boudreau v. Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp., 616 F. 2d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir.1980) (applying Arizona law). Rather, this case is like that described in Seymour v. Coughlin Co., 609 F. 2d 346, 349 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 957, 100 S.Ct. 2929, 64 L.Ed.2d 816 (1980), in which “both parties contend that the agreement is unambiguous, [but] each contends for an interpretation favorable to its position.” Our review of the record makes plain that the parties to this case acted…