Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- ACLU (1)
- Albernaz v. United States (1)
- Application of Noel (1)
- Arkansas v. Sanders (1)
- Baker v. Carr (1)
-
- Baxtrom v. Herold (1)
- Bellotti v. Baird (1)
- Bezio v. Patenaude (1)
- Blacks United for Lasting Leadership Inc. v. City of Shreveport (1)
- Blockburger v. United States (1)
- Blythe v. Commonwealth (1)
- Bridges v. California (1)
- CBS Inc. v. Young (1)
- Caban v. Mohammed (1)
- Cady v. Dombrowski (1)
- Campbell v. District Court of Eighteenth Judicial District for County of Arapahoe (1)
- Cardwell v. Lewis (1)
- Carroll v. United States (1)
- Central South Carolina Chapter Society of Professional Journalists Sigma Delta Chi v. Martin (1)
- Chambers v. Maroney (1)
- Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer (1)
- Chimel v. California (1)
- City of Mobile v. Bolden (1)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1)
- D.H. v. J.H (1)
- DSM-III (1)
- DeVita v. DeVita (1)
- Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (1)
- Doe v. Doe (1)
- East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
H. L. V. Matheson: Can Parental Notification Be Required For Minors Seeking Abortions?, Gail Harrington Miller
H. L. V. Matheson: Can Parental Notification Be Required For Minors Seeking Abortions?, Gail Harrington Miller
University of Richmond Law Review
The extent to which a state can constitutionally legislate concerning abortion has been debated and litigated since the Supreme Court rendered its controversial Roe v. Wade decision which recognized that a woman's fundamental right to privacy under the Constitution encompasses the decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The constitutional questions become more complicated when the state regulates a minors access to abortion due to the unique status of female minors. Although such minor's are biologically capable of conception and childbirth, they are also potentially vulnerable and lack maturity in making informed choices regarding critical matters, such as whether …
Judicial Restraining Orders And The Media: Does It Really Matter Who Is Gagged?, James M. Jennings Ii
Judicial Restraining Orders And The Media: Does It Really Matter Who Is Gagged?, James M. Jennings Ii
University of Richmond Law Review
Writing in Bridges v. California, Justice Hugo Black observed forty years ago that "free speech and fair trials are two of the most cherished policies of our civilization, and it would be a trying task to choose between them." And yet, these constitutionally guaranteed rights have been in conflict since at least 1807.
Search And Seizure Of Containers Found In Automobiles: The Supreme Court Struggles For A "Bright Line" Rule, James M. Mccauley
Search And Seizure Of Containers Found In Automobiles: The Supreme Court Struggles For A "Bright Line" Rule, James M. Mccauley
University of Richmond Law Review
Two recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court have added a new dimension to the law of search and seizure of automobiles and containers found within motor vehicles. The plurality opinion in Robbins v. California'held that a closed opaque container found in the luggage compartment of a station wagon during the course of a lawful vehicle search could not be seized without a warrant. However, in New York v. Belton, a majority held that a police officer, incident to a lawful custodial arrest of an occupant of an automobile, may search the passenger compartment of that automobile and examine …
"Arbeit Macht Frei:" Vocational Rehabilitation And The Release Of Virginia's Criminally Insane, Daryl B. Matthews, Patrick J. Coyne
"Arbeit Macht Frei:" Vocational Rehabilitation And The Release Of Virginia's Criminally Insane, Daryl B. Matthews, Patrick J. Coyne
University of Richmond Law Review
The release from confinement of persons acquitted by reason of insanity is one of the most perplexing problems of the criminal law. The insanity acquittee's release confronts our deepest fears, and the procedures which society employes in this process force us to face the difficult and often intractable issue of the responsibility of the criminally insane.
Doe V. Doe: Destroying The Presumption That Homosexual Parents Are Unfit- The New Burden Of Proof, Gary L. Caldwell
Doe V. Doe: Destroying The Presumption That Homosexual Parents Are Unfit- The New Burden Of Proof, Gary L. Caldwell
University of Richmond Law Review
In a recent decision concerning adoption, the Virginia Supreme Court declined "to hold that every lesbian mother or homosexual father is per se an unfit parent." This finding was apparently at odds with Virginia statutes outlawing marriages between members of the same sex and making it a criminal offense to engage in a homosexual relationship. In rejecting the trial court's use of a conclusive legal presumption that homosexuality is tantamount to a parent's unfitness, the justices closely examined the effects of the appellant's lesbianism upon her son to "determine whether the consequences of harm to the child of allowing the …
Double Jeopardy And The Virginia Supreme Court: Three Approaches To Multiple Punishment, Jane S. Glenn
Double Jeopardy And The Virginia Supreme Court: Three Approaches To Multiple Punishment, Jane S. Glenn
University of Richmond Law Review
The double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution affords three primary protections. First, the clause protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. Secondly, it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. Thirdly, the clause prohibits the imposition of multiple punishment for a single offense. Although the double jeopardy principle has roots in antiquity, it may be one of our least understood constitutional protections. This comment will focus on the third protection of double jeopardy as it has been developed by the United States Supreme Court and recently …
Constitutional And Statutory Challenges To Local At-Large Elections, Timothy G. O'Rourke
Constitutional And Statutory Challenges To Local At-Large Elections, Timothy G. O'Rourke
University of Richmond Law Review
On April 22, 1980, in City of Mobile v. Bolden the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of at-large elections for the three-member city commission in Mobile, Alabama. In so doing, the Court reversed the judgment of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that Mobile's at-large plan impermissibly diluted the electoral influence of black voters in violation of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution. The Supreme Court's decision in Bolden [I] emerged from a sharply divided court. A six-person majority in the case consisted of four justices-Stewart, Burger, Powell, and Rehnquist-who joined in a plurality opinion; Justice …