Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Hiibel V. Sixth Judicial District Court:Can Police Arrest Suspects For Withholding Their Names?, John Famum
Hiibel V. Sixth Judicial District Court:Can Police Arrest Suspects For Withholding Their Names?, John Famum
Richmond Public Interest Law Review
Suppose that someone calls the police and alerts them to a crime that has been committed. Using the information provided, the police stop you because you fit the description of the person reported. If the police ask your name, must you give it? The United States Supreme Court believes you must if the state you are in has passed a law requiring you to give your name. In a factual situation very similar to this, the United States Supreme Court held in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court that the Nevada law requiring a person to provide his name in …
Raytheon V. Hernandez:The Americans With Disabilities Act And Its Effect On Neutral,Non-Discriminatory (Non) Hiring Policies Of Employers, Kendra Horger
Richmond Public Interest Law Review
This casenote will examine the legislative history and background of the ADA, the case law following its passage, the procedural and substantive background of Raytheon, the Supreme Court's holding in Raytheon, and the impact thereof.
Pennsylvania State Police V. Suders: The Constructive Discharge Doctrine's Applicability To Title Vii Sexual Harassment Cases And The Availabilityof The Ellerth/Faragher Affirmative Defense, Laura Marston
Richmond Public Interest Law Review
This note examines the Court's decision in Suders and the evolution of the constructive discharge doctrine, specifically its applicability to Title VII sexual harassment cases. Part II analyzes the origins and purpose of the doctrine. Part III discusses the Court's previous decisions in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth4 and Faragher v. Boca Raton, which set the framework for Suders by establishing the important affirmative defense to Title VII constructive discharge cases that the Court in Suders more clearly defined. Part IV considers the Supreme Court's decision in Suders in light of Ellerth and Faragher, and Part V concludes with the …
Hardly A Clean Sweep:An Analysis Of The Supreme Court Of Virginia'streatment Of Statutory Employee Litigation, Scott Pasierb
Hardly A Clean Sweep:An Analysis Of The Supreme Court Of Virginia'streatment Of Statutory Employee Litigation, Scott Pasierb
Richmond Public Interest Law Review
The decision in Clean Sweep Prof'l Parking Lot Maint., Inc., v. Talley reveals the Supreme Court of Virginia's challenging task of applying the Commonwealth's workers' compensation scheme to industrial accident cases. Fraught with fine-line distinctions, which in many instances nullify a plaintiff s common law negligence claim, case law in this area deserves close attention. Verdicts in such statutory employee cases turn on the facts and offer counsel on both sides the opportunity to creatively argue their client's position. Part II of this note explores the legal background of Virginia's statutory employee scheme, first with an overview of two relevant …
Table Of Contents
Richmond Public Interest Law Review
Winter/Spring 2005 - Articles and Commentaries
Rivera V. Nibco:A Tentative Limitation Of The Supreme Court's Decision Inhoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. V. Nlrb, Rebecca L. Ennis
Rivera V. Nibco:A Tentative Limitation Of The Supreme Court's Decision Inhoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. V. Nlrb, Rebecca L. Ennis
Richmond Public Interest Law Review
In 2002, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB. This landmark decision seemingly eliminated any chance illegal immigrant employees had to obtain awards of backpay after being discharged in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). More importantly, however, the decision sent a message to the country that illegal entry into the United States was a violation that was to be taken more seriously by the courts than grossly unfair employment practices. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently handed down a decision in Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc. …
Police Shootings Under The Fourth Amendment, Wayne C. Beyer
Police Shootings Under The Fourth Amendment, Wayne C. Beyer
Richmond Public Interest Law Review
The Fourth Amendment permits police to use deadly force when there is an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to themselves or others. Although the governing standard is well established in a general way, its application to particular facts and circumstances may not be clear to officers on the street. Unless a reasonable police officer would have understood that his/her decision to shoot was clearly constitutionally prohibited, the officer may be entitled to qualified immunity, a decision that the court can make on summary judgment before trial. Discussed first are shootings that are not subject to Fourth Amendment …