Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Development regulation (3)
- Growth Management Act (3)
- Growth management (3)
- Land use (3)
- Takings (3)
-
- Fifth Amendment (2)
- First Amendment (2)
- Substantive due process (2)
- Abortion (1)
- Canon 7 (1)
- Electoral process (1)
- Employer drug testing (1)
- Equal protection (1)
- Family planning (1)
- Federal (1)
- Federally-funded (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Free speech (1)
- Freedom (1)
- Funding (1)
- Healer (1)
- Healers (1)
- Investment expectations (1)
- Judicial election (1)
- Liberty (1)
- Organized religion (1)
- Parent (1)
- Parents (1)
- Patient (1)
- Patients (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Dashed "Investment-Backed" Expectations: Will The Constitution Protect Property Owners From Excesses In Implementation Of The Growth Management Act?, Elaine Spencer
Seattle University Law Review
Section I briefly discusses the basic principles of takings law as enunciated by prior cases, as well as the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, and the Washington Supreme Court's recent decisions in Sintra, Inc. v. Seattle and Robinson v. Seattle. Although the Lucas decision has received considerable publicity, it advanced the state of the law rather little. The real guidance for future decisions arising out of the GMA will come from earlier United States Supreme Court decisions and the Washington Supreme Court's decisions in Sintra, Robinson, and Lutheran …
Religious Healing In The Courts: The Liberties And Liabilities Of Patients, Parents, And Healers, Barry Nobel
Religious Healing In The Courts: The Liberties And Liabilities Of Patients, Parents, And Healers, Barry Nobel
Seattle University Law Review
Accordingly, in light of this struggle to balance public health with religious liberty, this Article chronicles the evolving liberties and liabilities of religious patients, parents, and healers over the course of the twentieth century and examines the current state of religious healing law. Throughout, it advocates the greatest possible liberty for religious healing consistent with public and family security, as well as advocating equal protection under the law for all involved in religious treatment, whether they are members of organized religious groups or individual practitioners.
Washington Constitution Article 1, Section 7: The Argument For Broader Protection Against Employer Drug Testing, Ken Davis
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment will analyze Article 1, Section 7 of the Washington Constitution, the search and seizure provision, and conclude that this provision should be construed to provide greater protection to employees against employer drug testing absent individualized suspicion than the Fourth Amendment does. The scope of this Comment, however, is limited to the rights of state employees with respect to suspicionless drug testing. The rights of federal employees are not included in this analysis because they are protected against suspicionless drug testing only by the Fourth Amendment, not by the analogous Washington provision. Moreover, Article 1, Section 7, like the …
Rust V. Sullivan: Redirecting The Katzenbach V. Morgan Power, Paul Chuey
Rust V. Sullivan: Redirecting The Katzenbach V. Morgan Power, Paul Chuey
Seattle University Law Review
By deferring to the discretion of another branch of the federal government on a question of constitutional interpretation, the Rust Court implicitly resurrects and reshapes the long ignored doctrine of Katzenbach v. Morgan. Despite their different substantive issues, these two cases have a similar effect on the federal judiciary's role in constitutional interpretation. Section I of this Note describes the facts and history surrounding Rust and Morgan. Section II examines the Rust doctrine of judicial deference in the context of Morgan. Section III examines the Rust Court's approach to the First Amendment issues raised by the regulation …
Between Scylla And Charybdis: Growth Management Act Implementation That Avoids Takings And Substantive Due Process Limitations, Jeffrey M. Eustis
Between Scylla And Charybdis: Growth Management Act Implementation That Avoids Takings And Substantive Due Process Limitations, Jeffrey M. Eustis
Seattle University Law Review
This Article begins with an overview of the GMA. It then proceeds with a summary of recent case law under the Takings Clause and substantive due process doctrine. After laying this groundwork, this Article focuses on four particular areas of growth management control and explores how local legislation implementing these areas of control would be analyzed under the Takings Clause and substantive due process. These four areas of land use regulation include: critical area protections, resource land designations, development phasing requirements for concurrency and urban growth areas, and impact fees for public facilities and services. This Article then concludes with …
Takings Law, Lucas, And The Growth Management Act, John M. Groen, Richard M. Stephens
Takings Law, Lucas, And The Growth Management Act, John M. Groen, Richard M. Stephens
Seattle University Law Review
In light of Lucas and the recent constitutionally questionable Washington decisions, government entities charged with implementing the GMA may have a more difficult time avoiding takings liability than previously thought. Accordingly, this Article first seeks to clarify the modern takings analysis as refined by Lucas. Second, Washington takings precedent is contrasted with the federal approach and several key changes are suggested to make state law consistent with controlling federal precedent. Third, key aspects of the GMA are identified that can be expected to raise takings implications. By identifying potential trouble spots in the GMA now, hopefully some takings will …
Toward Meaningful Judicial Elections: A Case For Reform Of Canon 7, Michele Radosevich
Toward Meaningful Judicial Elections: A Case For Reform Of Canon 7, Michele Radosevich
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment argues that elections can give us good judges who are both accountable to the voters and able to decide cases impartially. To accomplish this, we must, in the words of one local media commentator, “take off the muzzle and allow judges to discuss issues.” But before one can propose change, one should understand the present system and the purposes it was designed to serve. Part II of this Comment examines Canon 7 of the Washington Code of Judicial Conduct and the balance it strikes between accountability and impartiality. Part III explores how the Canon has been interpreted in …