Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

PDF

2006

Constitutional Law

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

Eliding In New York, Monte Neil Stewart Jul 2006

Eliding In New York, Monte Neil Stewart

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In January 2006, this Journal published an article that set forth the social institutional argument for man/woman marriage, demonstrated how that argument is a sufficient response to all constitutional attacks leveled at the laws sustaining that social institution, and detailed how the courts mandating genderless marriage (and the dissenting judges favoring that result) had elided the argument (“the Judicial Elision article”). Since the Judicial Elision article’s early December 2005 cut-off date, two more instances of judicial elision of social institutional realities have cropped up in New York. Both are dissenting opinions, one in the Appellate Division and one ...


Exxon Mobil Corp. V. Allapattah Services Inc., Blayre Britton Apr 2006

Exxon Mobil Corp. V. Allapattah Services Inc., Blayre Britton

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In diversity cases, only one plaintiff or class member must satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.


Mayle V. Felix, Aleksandra Kopec Mar 2006

Mayle V. Felix, Aleksandra Kopec

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Following his murder conviction, Felix filed a pro se habeas petition alleging Sixth Amendment violations at trial The petition was filed within the one-year Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act deadline. He was later appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition alleging Fifth Amendment violations; but that petition was filed five months after the AEDPA deadline had passed. The Court held that the amended petition was not saved by the Relation Back doctrine because it did not share with the earlier claims a common "core of operative facts."


Merck Kgaa V. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd.: Greater Research Protection For Drug Manufacturers, Samuel Rubin Mar 2006

Merck Kgaa V. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd.: Greater Research Protection For Drug Manufacturers, Samuel Rubin

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Merck sought protection under a statutory exemption from claims of patent infringement brought by Integra Lifesciences. The Court held unanimously that the safe harbor contained in 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) protected the use of patented inventions used in preclinical research where the results were not submitted to the FDA. The Court's interpretation of the safe harbor provision broadened protection for those engaged in drug research at a substantial cost to patent-holders.


Smith V. City Of Jackson: Age Discrimination Act Authorizes Disparate Impact Claims – But Scope Is Narrow, William B. Holladay Mar 2006

Smith V. City Of Jackson: Age Discrimination Act Authorizes Disparate Impact Claims – But Scope Is Narrow, William B. Holladay

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

When Jackson, Mississippi revised its salary structure for police and public safety officers, it gave proportionately higher increases to officers with less than five years of seniority, who were overwhelmingly under forty years old. Thirty officers over the age of forty sued the city for age discrimination, alleging disparate impact. In a plurality opinion, the Court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act authorized claims of disparate impact. When it accepted the employer’s justification for the raise and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim, however, the Court signaled that in the future, the scope of disparate impact claims would be ...