Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Weinberger V. Wiesenfeld, 95 S. Ct. 1225 (1975), Barbara Cozad Biddle
Weinberger V. Wiesenfeld, 95 S. Ct. 1225 (1975), Barbara Cozad Biddle
Florida State University Law Review
Constitutional Law- EQUAL PROTECTION- DENYING SOCIAL SECURITY "MOTHER'S INSURANCE BENEFITS" TO FATHERS VIOLATES EQUAL PROTECTION COMPONENT OF FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.
Niles V. Niles, 299 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1974), C. Anthony Cleveland
Niles V. Niles, 299 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1974), C. Anthony Cleveland
Florida State University Law Review
Child Custody- INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN FRAMING CUSTODY MODIFICATION ORDERS.
New Approaches To The Civil Disabilities Of Ex-Offenders, Walter W. May, Larry F. Sword
New Approaches To The Civil Disabilities Of Ex-Offenders, Walter W. May, Larry F. Sword
Kentucky Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Thoughts On Rodriguez: Mr. Justice Powell And The Demise Of Equal Protection Analysis In The Supreme Court, Larry Yackle
Thoughts On Rodriguez: Mr. Justice Powell And The Demise Of Equal Protection Analysis In The Supreme Court, Larry Yackle
Faculty Scholarship
Since the fall of 1969 when Warren Earl Burger took his seat as Chief Justice, the academic community has placed the Supreme Court under a thorough and searching examination. Coming on the heels of enormous and far-reaching activity in the judicial branch, the Burger Court has been called to account for both its adherence to and its rejection of the Warren Court's innovations in constitutional adjudication. The purpose of this article is to continue that constructive criticism by taking stock, after five years, of the Court's performance in one significant class of cases-those interpreting the equal protection clause of the …
Pre-Trial Detainees Must Be Held Under The Least Restrictive Means Possible To Assure The Detainees' Presence At Trial. Rhem V. Malcolm, 371 F. Supp. 594, Opinion Supplemented, 377 F. Supp. 995 (S.D.N.Y.), Aff'd, 507 F.2d 333 (2d Cir. 1974)., Todd L. Klipp
Fordham Urban Law Journal
Plaintiffs, detainees at the Manhattan House of Detention for Men (MHD), more commonly known as the "Tombs," brought suit for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Commissioner of Corrections of the City of New York, the warden, the mayor, and various state officials. Plaintiffs alleged that the conditions of their detention constituted a denial of their rights under the first, fifth, sixth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found unconstitutional conditions did exist and ordered the city to submit a plan within thirty days to remedy the constitutional infirmities. Six …