Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Cleveland Board of Education v. Lafleur (2)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (2)
- Stone v. Powell (2)
- APA (1)
- Administrative Procedure Act (1)
-
- Argersinger v. Hamlin (1)
- Arnett v. Kennedy (1)
- Arnold Tours Inc. v. Camp (1)
- Association of Data Processing Service Organizations Inc. v. Camp (1)
- Barker v. Wingo (1)
- Barlow v. Collins (1)
- Barnes v. United States (1)
- Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1)
- Brown v. Allen (1)
- Brown v. Board of Education (1)
- Brown v. Illinois (1)
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat (1)
- Burger Court (1)
- California Bankers v. Shultz (1)
- Chaffin v. Stynchcombe (1)
- Chambers v. Mississippi (1)
- Clayton Act (1)
- Continental T.V. v. GTE Sylvania (1)
- Couch v. United States (1)
- Daniels v. Allen (1)
- Doyle v. Ohio (1)
- Estelle v. Williams (1)
- Fay v. Noia (1)
- Flast v. Cohen (1)
- Francis v. Henderson (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Balanced Justice: Mr. Justice Powell And The Constitution, Randolph C. Duvall, John E. Ely, Mark S. Gardner, William C. Goodwin, H. P. Williams
Balanced Justice: Mr. Justice Powell And The Constitution, Randolph C. Duvall, John E. Ely, Mark S. Gardner, William C. Goodwin, H. P. Williams
University of Richmond Law Review
In his first five years on the United States Supreme Court, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. has become and will most likely continue to be a leading force in shaping the direction of the Court. In many areas, Justice Powell's desire for judicial flexibility as well as judicial restraint has made him a leader in turning the Burger Court away from the bright-line tests enunciated by the Warren Court. However, where the Warren Court had been flexible, Justice Powell has usually preserved this flexibility and expanded it if possible. The tool consistently utilized to achieve this flexibility has been a …
Socking It To Plaintiffs: Supreme Court Antitrust Decisions In 1976-77 Term, Jeff Miles
Socking It To Plaintiffs: Supreme Court Antitrust Decisions In 1976-77 Term, Jeff Miles
University of Richmond Law Review
Those persons who delve into the sometimes esoteric and sometimes shockingly practical world of the antitrust laws have noticed a markedly increased emphasis on both private and public enforcement efforts in recent years. One need look no further than the attacks against groups once thought to be immune, I action by Congress, and substantially increased state enforcement to see a vigorous movement to assure that no violation goes unnoticed and unpunished, and that private parties are compensated three-fold for injuries suffered by reason of illegal anticompetitive activity.
Hon. Lewis F. Powell, Jr.: Five Years On The Supreme Court: Mr. Justice Powell: An Overview, J. Harvie Wilkinson Iii
Hon. Lewis F. Powell, Jr.: Five Years On The Supreme Court: Mr. Justice Powell: An Overview, J. Harvie Wilkinson Iii
University of Richmond Law Review
In January of 1977, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., marked his fifth anniversary as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Any definitive evaluation of Justice Powell at this hopefully still early stage of his judicial service is impossible. Yet the 1975 term of Court-Powell's fifth-marked him as a Justice of great collegial impact and, in terms of his own career, saw a coming of age: an end, if you will, to the beginning.
Mr. Justice Powell's Standing, Gary C. Leedes
Mr. Justice Powell's Standing, Gary C. Leedes
University of Richmond Law Review
Some may lament the results of Mr. Justice Powell's attempts to clarify the law of standing. Indeed, public interest lawyers who advocate granting standing on a surrogate basis to individuals who are members of a large unorganized class of diffuse interests have cause to complain about a return to a more orthodox conception of standing. However, Mr. Justice Powell has a different outlook, viz., in a democratic society, a federal court is not necessarily an appropriate or the most effective institution to redress the grievances of people upset by alleged lawless government action.
Federal Habeas Corpus After Stone V. Powell: A Remedy Only For The Arguably Innocent?, Sam Boyte
Federal Habeas Corpus After Stone V. Powell: A Remedy Only For The Arguably Innocent?, Sam Boyte
University of Richmond Law Review
State prisoners lost several grounds for seeking federal habeas corpus relief during the Supreme Court's 1975 term. In each case, the Court was prepared to admit, at least for the purposes of argument, that there were constitutional infirmities in the state criminal process which resulted in the confinement of the prisoner; nonetheless, the Court held that the prisoner would not be permitted to attack his conviction collaterally in federal court. Because the prisoner in Francis v. Henderson had not complied with a state procedural rule requiring such challenges to be brought before trial, the Supreme Court held that he could …