NOKIA, INC., ET AL.
v.
NAQUIN ET AL.; AND CELLCO PARTNERSHIP ET AL. V. PINNEY ET AL.

U.S. | 2005-10-31
Nos. 05-198; No. 05-207
The Chief Justice, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.
546 U.S. 998 Supreme Court of the United States (2005) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Opinion

Full opinion text not available for this case.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Frost v. State, 53 So. 3d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
    …f a police dog’s reliability to provide probable cause for a warrantless search. Frost relies on the first line of cases, which began with Matheson v. State, 870 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), review dismissed, 896 So. 2d 748 (Fla.2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 998, 126 S.Ct. 545, 163 L.Ed.2d 499 (2005). In Matheson, the Second District held that a dog’s alert to the presence of drugs may provide probable cause, but not by itself; proof that a narcotic dog has been trained and certified is insufficient in and…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw