Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Estes v. Texas (2)
- Sheppard v. Maxwell (2)
- B. R. De Witt Inc. v. Hall (1)
- Beacon Theatres v. Westover (1)
- Bernhardv. Bank of American National Trust & Savings Association (1)
-
- Blonder-Tongue Laboratories v. University of Illinois (1)
- Bridges v. California (1)
- CBS Inc. v. Young (1)
- Central South Carolina Chapter Society of Professional Journalists Sigma Delta Chi v. Martin (1)
- Chandler v. Florida (1)
- Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer (1)
- Di Orio v. Scottsdale (1)
- Florida v. Bannister (1)
- Gitlow v. New York (1)
- Hamilton v. Municipal Court (1)
- Hirschkop v. Snead (1)
- Irvin v. Dowd (1)
- Lawlor v. National Screen Service (1)
- Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart (1)
- Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1)
- Ohio ex rel. Leach v. Sawicki (1)
- Parklane Hoisery Co. v. Shore (1)
- Pennington v. Snow (1)
- Procunier v. Martinez (1)
- Rachal v. Hill (1)
- Reardon v. Allen (1)
- Restatement of the Law (Second) of Judgments (1)
- Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1)
- Rideau v. Louisiana (1)
- SEC (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
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.
Collateral Estoppel, Rose M. Alexander, Ofie T. Rubin, Anita G. Vaughn, Carol L. Wingo
Collateral Estoppel, Rose M. Alexander, Ofie T. Rubin, Anita G. Vaughn, Carol L. Wingo
University of Richmond Law Review
The doctrine of collateral estoppel involves the use of an old judgment in a new action to prevent the relitigation of issues resolved by that old judgment. At common law, use of the doctrine required that the party using collateral estoppel and the party against whom it was used be the same as the parties to the prior judgment. This common law requirement of mutuality has been relaxed and since the United States Supreme Court's 1979 decision in ParklaneHoisery Co. v. Shore, the strict common law requirement of mutuality has all but completely vanished. In Parklane the Court sanctioned the …
The Prejudicial Effects Of Cameras In The Courtroom, Robert J. Fuoco
The Prejudicial Effects Of Cameras In The Courtroom, Robert J. Fuoco
University of Richmond Law Review
The Supreme Court recently held in Chandler v. Florida, that absent a showing of actual prejudice, it is not per se unconstitutional to televise trials over the objection of the defendant. This decision has a direct bearing on state court procedures, as over one-half of the states currently permit television coverage of trials in one form or another. However, sheer numbers supporting a proposition do not make that proposition "right", nor does a Supreme Court decision upholding its constitutionality imply an unqualified stamp of approval. In fact, previous Supreme Court decisions have overturned convictions because the defendant's right to a …