Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 15 of 15
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Equal Protection For Illegitimate Children In State Welfare Programs, Phillip North
Equal Protection For Illegitimate Children In State Welfare Programs, Phillip North
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Bilingual Welfare Notice Not Required - Guerrero V. Carleson, 9 Cal. 3d 808, 512 P.2d 833, 109 Cal. Rptr. 201 (1973), Mary Beth Diez
Bilingual Welfare Notice Not Required - Guerrero V. Carleson, 9 Cal. 3d 808, 512 P.2d 833, 109 Cal. Rptr. 201 (1973), Mary Beth Diez
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Illegitimate Children And Constitutional Review, Clayton W. Plotkin, John Vodonick
Illegitimate Children And Constitutional Review, Clayton W. Plotkin, John Vodonick
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Beyond Weighing And Sifting: Narrowing Judicial Focus As An Alternative To Burton V. Wilmington Parking Authority, William W. Wynder
Beyond Weighing And Sifting: Narrowing Judicial Focus As An Alternative To Burton V. Wilmington Parking Authority, William W. Wynder
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
This Alj Said Too Much: Prison Hearing Officer Charges Michigan Department Of Corrections With First Amendment Violations And Race Discrimination, Carolyn Amadon
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
No abstract provided.
Gideon Meets Goldberg: The Case For A Qualified Right To Counsel In Welfare Hearings, Stephen Loffredo, Don Friedman
Gideon Meets Goldberg: The Case For A Qualified Right To Counsel In Welfare Hearings, Stephen Loffredo, Don Friedman
Touro Law Review
In Goldberg v. Kelly, the Supreme Court held that welfare recipients have a right under the Due Process Clause to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the state may terminate assistance. However, the Court stopped short of holding due process requires states to appoint counsel to represent claimants at these constitutionally mandated hearings. As a result, in the vast majority of administrative hearings involving welfare benefits, claimants- desperately poor, and often with little formal education- must appear pro se while trained advocates represent the government. Drawing on the theory of underenforced constitutional norms, first articulated by Dean …
Rostker V. Goldberg: A Step Backward In Equal Protection, Or A Justifiable Affirmation Of Congressional Power?, Gilbert L. Purcell, Janet Rappaport
Rostker V. Goldberg: A Step Backward In Equal Protection, Or A Justifiable Affirmation Of Congressional Power?, Gilbert L. Purcell, Janet Rappaport
Pepperdine Law Review
The Supreme Court in Rostker v. Goldberg upheld a Congressional decision which excluded women from registration for service in the Armed Forces of the United States. Although the case was brought based upon equal protection grounds, the majority took a separation of powers stance and based its decision upon the fact that the Court has traditionally granted deference to the decisions of Congress in the area of military affairs. The minority opinions disagreed with the majority's analysis and claimed that the central issue in Rostker was not military in nature, but was that Congress' plan to register males only, promoted …
Wengler V. Druggists' Mutual Insurance Company: No More Skirting The Issue Of Sex Discrimination In Workers' Compensation Dependency Statutes, Teresa A. Saggese, Lawson A. Cox Ii
Wengler V. Druggists' Mutual Insurance Company: No More Skirting The Issue Of Sex Discrimination In Workers' Compensation Dependency Statutes, Teresa A. Saggese, Lawson A. Cox Ii
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Justice Stevens And The Emerging Law Of Sex Discrimination , John P. Wagner
Justice Stevens And The Emerging Law Of Sex Discrimination , John P. Wagner
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Mistreating A Symptom: The Legitimizing Of Mandatory, Indefinite Commitment Of Insanity Acquittees - Jones V. United States, Paul S. Avilla
Mistreating A Symptom: The Legitimizing Of Mandatory, Indefinite Commitment Of Insanity Acquittees - Jones V. United States, Paul S. Avilla
Pepperdine Law Review
At the end of the 1982 term, in Jones v. United States, the United States Supreme Court upheld a District of Columbia statute requiring the automatic and indefinite commitment of persons acquitted by reason of insanity. While under the D.C. statute the acquittee is periodically given the opportunity to gain release, the practice of involuntarily confining someone who has been acquitted raises serious due process and equal protection issues. This note examines the Court's analysis of these issues, focusing on a comparison of the elements necessary for an insanity defense with the showing required by the due process clause for …
Reinforcement Of Middle Level Review Regarding Gender Classifications: Mississippi University For Women V. Hogan , Mary Ellen Shull
Reinforcement Of Middle Level Review Regarding Gender Classifications: Mississippi University For Women V. Hogan , Mary Ellen Shull
Pepperdine Law Review
In Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, the United States Supreme Court was presented with an equal protection challenge initiated by a male who was denied admission to a state-supported all-female school of nursing. After a review of relevant decisions in this area, the author examines the Supreme Court's intermediate level of scrutiny analysis and argues that application of a higher level of scrutiny to gender-based classifications is a prerequisite to true equality between the sexes.
An Analysis Of Selective Service System V. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, Teresa L. Howell
An Analysis Of Selective Service System V. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, Teresa L. Howell
Pepperdine Law Review
Section 1113 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act passed in 1982 prohibits the receipt of Title IV educational funds by students who do not comply with draft registration requirements. In Selective Service System v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, the United States Supreme Court upheld section 1113 in the face of a multi-tiered constitutional challenge. After exploring the history of section 1113, the author examines the Supreme Court's analysis of each of the constitutional challenges: bill of attainder, privilege against self-incrimination, and equal protection. Finally, the author investigates the probable impact of the Court's decision.
Aids: Do Children With Aids Have A Right To Attend School?, Gilbert A. Partida
Aids: Do Children With Aids Have A Right To Attend School?, Gilbert A. Partida
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Equal Protection And The New Rational Basis Test: The Mentally Retarded Are Not Second Class Citizens In Cleburne, Gordon W. Johnson
Equal Protection And The New Rational Basis Test: The Mentally Retarded Are Not Second Class Citizens In Cleburne, Gordon W. Johnson
Pepperdine Law Review
Recently, the Fifth Circuit held that classifications involving the mentally retarded were quasi-suspect and should be reviewed under a heightened scrutiny analysis. The Supreme Court reversed that holding but granted the retarded a remedy by applying a more genuine scrutiny under the rational basis test. The Court's decision in City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. raises the question whether the Court intends to apply an increased level of scrutiny under the rational basis test or whether this case merely represents another ad hoc decision made on the horns of a dilemma. This Note discusses the uncertain impact …
The Unwed Father's Custody Claim In California: When Does The Parental Preference Doctrine Apply?, Jeffrey S. Boyd
The Unwed Father's Custody Claim In California: When Does The Parental Preference Doctrine Apply?, Jeffrey S. Boyd
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.