Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional law (59)
- First Amendment (45)
- Constitution (32)
- Supreme Court (32)
- United States Supreme Court (24)
-
- Federalism (23)
- Constitutional Law (21)
- Religion (20)
- California (19)
- Abortion (16)
- Equal protection (15)
- Evidence (15)
- Congress (13)
- Separation of powers (13)
- United States (13)
- Fourth Amendment (12)
- Privacy (12)
- Right to counsel (11)
- Due Process (10)
- Legislation (10)
- Due process of law (9)
- Eminent domain (9)
- Fourteenth Amendment (9)
- Government (9)
- Speech (9)
- Crime (8)
- Criminal procedure (8)
- Defendant (8)
- Establishment clause (8)
- Exclusionary rule (8)
Articles 91 - 120 of 312
Full-Text Articles in Law
Uncle Sam And The Partitioning Punitive Problem: A Federal Split-Recovery Statute Or A Federal Tax?, Skyler M. Sanders
Uncle Sam And The Partitioning Punitive Problem: A Federal Split-Recovery Statute Or A Federal Tax?, Skyler M. Sanders
Pepperdine Law Review
It is no secret that the doctrine of punitive damages has had a storied past in American jurisprudence, yet it has remained an integral part of both federal and state courts throughout the country. Most, if not all, attempts to restrict punitive damage awards have failed due to the over-inclusive or under-inclusive nature of the remedial measures; however, split-recovery statutes—another punitive damage regulatory tool—have been touted as striking a proper balance between limiting plaintiff windfalls while still punishing and deterring defendants. Even so, such statutes have been meet with vigorous constitutional criticism and fail to curtail punitive damage awards for …
Defining The Lifeblood: The Search For A Sensible Ministerial Exception Test, Summer E. Allen
Defining The Lifeblood: The Search For A Sensible Ministerial Exception Test, Summer E. Allen
Pepperdine Law Review
Over the past 40 years, the circuit courts have acknowledged a ministerial exception to Title VII and other anti-discrimination laws that gives churches the freedom to determine who serves in ministerial roles as a voice of a church’s faith. In January of 2012, the Supreme Court officially adopted the exception into its jurisprudence. The opinion, however, left many questions unanswered. Mainly, the decision failed to give any guidance to lower courts regarding who is and who is not a minister. This article traces the history of the ministerial exception and the church autonomy doctrine back to the Religion Clauses in …
Executive Action And The First Amendment's First Word, Daniel J. Hemel
Executive Action And The First Amendment's First Word, Daniel J. Hemel
Pepperdine Law Review
In recent years, textualist scholars have advanced the argument that the First Amendment only applies to legislative action, and thus that executive authority is unencumbered by the First Amendment’s prohibitions. According to this argument, the words “Congress shall make no law” cannot be construed to limit the powers of the executive branch. Upon first glance, it might seem that a textualist reading of the First Amendment’s first word would give the executive branch carte blanche in the regulation of religion, expression, and association. Yet as this Article seeks to show, a textualist reading of the First Amendment’s first word does …
What Standard Should Be Used To Determine A Valid Juvenile Waiver?, Martin Levy, Stephen Skacevic
What Standard Should Be Used To Determine A Valid Juvenile Waiver?, Martin Levy, Stephen Skacevic
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The California Constitutional Right Of Privacy And Exclusion Of Evidence In Civil Proceedings, Jerry D. Mackey
The California Constitutional Right Of Privacy And Exclusion Of Evidence In Civil Proceedings, Jerry D. Mackey
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Mexican-American Penal Sentences Treaty: A Run-On Sentence, Gary Gray
The Mexican-American Penal Sentences Treaty: A Run-On Sentence, Gary Gray
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Where For Art Thou Danforth: Bellotti V. Baird , David C. Boatwright
Where For Art Thou Danforth: Bellotti V. Baird , David C. Boatwright
Pepperdine Law Review
The author's focus is upon a Supreme Court opinion dealing with the constitutional parameters of a minor's right to make an independent decision with respect to abortion. The majority, in an attempt to balance the often conflicting interests of the minor, the minor's parents, and the state, sets forth the minimum requirements with which parental consent statutes must comply. The author emphasizes the significance of the high court's plurality split regarding this issue, and cautions the practitioner as to the possibility of inconsistent rulings on such statutes in the future.
Procedural Rights In The Juvenile Court: Incorporation Or Due Process?, Glen W. Clark
Procedural Rights In The Juvenile Court: Incorporation Or Due Process?, Glen W. Clark
Pepperdine Law Review
The landmark Supreme Court decision in In re Gault established, among other things, a juvenile's right to counsel in delinquency prosecutions. However, the decision left unanswered certain questions relating to the nature and scope of that right. In this article, the author examines whether or not Gault initiated a special due process right to counsel for juveniles apart from that body of sixth amendment law previously developed in criminal cases. Alternatively, he wonders whether Gault was meant to initiate a process of selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the juvenile justice system. The author critically analyzes the resulting …
Consolidated Edison Company Of New York V. Public Service Commission: Freedom Of Speech Extended To Monopolies - Is There No Escape For The Consumer?, Lynn K. Warren
Pepperdine Law Review
The author's focus is upon an opinion of the United States Supreme Court which silently extended first amendment freedoms to a corporate monopoly. The majority attempts a balancing of the monopoly utility's freedom of speech against the state's protection of the privacy interests of the ratepayers and finds the privacy interest not to be so compelling as to justify any restriction on freedom of speech. The author suggests that the privacy interest is so substantial as to be compelling and further agrees with the dissent, that because of the special position of the Consolidated Edison Company as a monopoly and …
United States V. Salvucci: The Problematic Absence Of Automatic Standing, William C. Bollard
United States V. Salvucci: The Problematic Absence Of Automatic Standing, William C. Bollard
Pepperdine Law Review
The United States Supreme Court recently abolished the automatic standing rule in United States v. Salvucci. The author analyzes the difficulties created for the criminal defendant charged with a possessory crime. In particular, this note focuses on the inequitable position the defendant is placed in when his suppression hearing testimony is used as a tool to impeach subsequent testimony offered at trial. The author continues by pointing out that the "prosecutorial self-contradiction," sought to be abolished in Salvucci, remains a part of our present judicial system. In conclusion, the author offers several considerations that will necessarily be an integral part …
Harris V. Mcrae: Whatever Happened To The Roe V. Wade Abortion Right?, Laura Crocker
Harris V. Mcrae: Whatever Happened To The Roe V. Wade Abortion Right?, Laura Crocker
Pepperdine Law Review
The controversial Roe v. Wade decision purportedly removed the abortion controversy from the political arena and set constitutional standards by which questions on the issue could be resolved. The enactment of the Hyde Amendment, a bill which generally forbids the use of Medicaid funds for abortions, was a recent political response to the abortion controversy. However, in the recent case of Harris v. McRae, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment and thus injected the abortion controversy back into the political arena. The author exhaustively examines the abortion controversy from the time of the Roe decision up …
Agins V. City Of Tiburon: Open Space Zoning Prevails - Failure To Submit Master Plan Prevents A Cognizable Decrease In Property Value, Jermaine Chastain
Agins V. City Of Tiburon: Open Space Zoning Prevails - Failure To Submit Master Plan Prevents A Cognizable Decrease In Property Value, Jermaine Chastain
Pepperdine Law Review
This casenote examines the Supreme Court's struggle to reconcile its focus on the facial validity of a zoning ordinance with the traditional "taking" approach requiring diligent factual inquiry. While the Agins Court reiterates such an approach, the author notes the Court's departure from important constitutional and precedential considerations. The author offers a possible explanation for the departure, concluding that the Agins decision apparently makes plan submission a prerequisite for acknowledging economic loss and strongly implies a requirement of complete loss of all property value before a compensable taking will be recognized.
The Policeman's Duty And The Law Pertaining To Citizen Encounters, Charles M. Oberly Iii
The Policeman's Duty And The Law Pertaining To Citizen Encounters, Charles M. Oberly Iii
Pepperdine Law Review
In this article the author, by case analysis, identifies the confusion facing police officers when dealing with stop and frisk situations and suggests adoption of the Model Rules of Stop and Frisk as a possible solution to the problem.
United States V. Henry: The Further Expansion Of The Criminal Defendant's Right To Counsel During Interrogations, Kevin T. Kerr
United States V. Henry: The Further Expansion Of The Criminal Defendant's Right To Counsel During Interrogations, Kevin T. Kerr
Pepperdine Law Review
Despite the Burger Court's history of judicial conservatism, the Supreme Court in United States v. Henry exceeds the liberality of the Warren Court in the area of criminal defendant rights. The decision in Henry clearly provides further limitations upon the government's ability to conduct interrogations. The author examines the Court's factual and legal analysis of the case, emphasizes how the test established in Henry surpasses the rule promulgated in Massiah, and discusses the decision's impact as well as the curious turnabout of Chief Justice Burger.
A Barometer Of Freedom Of The Press: The Opinions Of Mr. Justice White , Michael J. Armstrong
A Barometer Of Freedom Of The Press: The Opinions Of Mr. Justice White , Michael J. Armstrong
Pepperdine Law Review
Since the Zurcher v. Stanford Daily decision which was authored by Justice Byron F. White, the news media has become increasingly concerned with its' first amendment protections from governmental searches. Since Justice White has been the voice of the United States Supreme Court on this very issue, the author submits that an examination of Justice White's media related opinions can serve as a "barometer" for the constitutional protections of the news media. The author examines the use of Justice White to the Supreme Court, his staunch adherence to stare decisis, and the historical foundation of the first amendment as they …
Has The Right To A Jury Trial As Guaranteed Under The Seventh Amendment Become Outdated In Complex Civil Litigation?, Georgiana G. Rodiger
Has The Right To A Jury Trial As Guaranteed Under The Seventh Amendment Become Outdated In Complex Civil Litigation?, Georgiana G. Rodiger
Pepperdine Law Review
Recognizing the continually increasing burden placed on the jury in complex litigation cases, the author undertakes an extensive study of the origins of jury trials in the United States and England. Various arguments in favor of eliminating jury trials in complex litigation are discussed, along with a possible constitutional method of limiting the scope of the seventh amendment guarantee. The author also studies the case of Ross v. Bernhardt where the Supreme Court outlined a seldom used three- pronged test to determine whether or not a jury trial is constitutionally appropriate. The comment concludes that the factors in favor of …
New York V. Belton: The Scope Of Warrantless Searches Extended, Glenn D. Forcucci
New York V. Belton: The Scope Of Warrantless Searches Extended, Glenn D. Forcucci
Pepperdine Law Review
The United States Supreme Court, in New York v. Belton, expanded the area in which a policeman may search after he has made a lawful custodial arrest. In so ruling, the Supreme Court dramatically departed from its previous holding in Chimel v. California. While Chimel limited the area of the search to the area "within the immediate control of the arrestee," Belton allowed a search outside of that established boundary, as the Supreme Court allowed the search to include the passenger compartment of an automobile which the arrestee had not occupied.
Heffron V. International Society For Krishna Consciousness Inc.: A Restrictive Constitutional View Of The Proselytizing Rights Of Religious Organizations , Michael M. Greenburg
Heffron V. International Society For Krishna Consciousness Inc.: A Restrictive Constitutional View Of The Proselytizing Rights Of Religious Organizations , Michael M. Greenburg
Pepperdine Law Review
The persistent efforts of religious organizations to reach their public have consistently been met with governmental limitation due to the often conflicting interests of public order, and free speech and expression. Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. represents the Court's latest redefinition of the extent of permissible limitations upon the activities of these groups. The author examines the decision in light of the traditional criteria for permissible time, place, and manner restrictions upon free speech and evaluates the Court's implementation of these restrictions with respect to the activities of the Krishna group. The impact of the decision upon …
Commonwealth Edison Co. V. State Of Montana: Constitutional Limitations On State Energy Resource Taxation, Nancy K. Stalcup
Commonwealth Edison Co. V. State Of Montana: Constitutional Limitations On State Energy Resource Taxation, Nancy K. Stalcup
Pepperdine Law Review
This note examines the case of Commonwealth Edison Co. v. State of Montana, where the United States Supreme Court analyzed and defined the permissible limitations of state energy resource taxation. While the Court adhered to the test of constitutional taxation established in Complete Auto Transit Inc. v. Brady, which strongly upheld a state's sovereign right to tax a local incident of interstate commerce, the Court failed to realize the practical ramifications of its ruling in the context o the nation's energy problems.
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.
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 …
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.
Chandler V. Florida: Cameras, Courts, And The Constitution, Allen F. Camp
Chandler V. Florida: Cameras, Courts, And The Constitution, Allen F. Camp
Pepperdine Law Review
The rising importance of television journalism in the 1960's has resulted in the Supreme Court deciding whether a criminal defendant's due process rights are violated by camera coverage of the courtroom proceeding. The decision of Chandler v. Florida clearly provides the answer; for unless a defendant proves prejudice with specificity, the Constitution does not ban televised criminal trials. The author examines the issues with a revealing historical perspective. He then traces the Court's factual and legal analysis and concludes that the decision will serve to offer the states guidance in deciding whether to implement a program allowing television coverage of …
Legislative Response To Zurcher V. Stanford Daily, J. Kirk Boyd
Legislative Response To Zurcher V. Stanford Daily, J. Kirk Boyd
Pepperdine Law Review
The author explores and surveys the legislative response to Zurcher v. Stanford Daily. While it is recognized that the debate and controversy is far from over, the resulting legislation, including the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, is viewed as being a significant contribution to the area of fourth amendment law. The author analyzes the applicable legislation in detail.
A New Standard Of Review In Free Exercise Cases: Thomas V. Review Board Of The Indiana Employment & Security Division, Lynn Mccutchen Gardner
A New Standard Of Review In Free Exercise Cases: Thomas V. Review Board Of The Indiana Employment & Security Division, Lynn Mccutchen Gardner
Pepperdine Law Review
In Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, the United States Supreme Court was called upon to clarify the appropriate level of review to be applied in cases which examine the first amendment right to free exercise of religion. The Court ruled that the "compelling state interest" test is the proper standard to be used. The Court also accorded first amendment protection to beliefs which are not shared by other members of a religious group and which are instead the unique interpretation of an individual member and not acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others.
Nixon V. Fitzgerald: Recognition Of Absolute Immunity From Personal Damage Liability For Presidential Acts, Craig B. Forry
Nixon V. Fitzgerald: Recognition Of Absolute Immunity From Personal Damage Liability For Presidential Acts, Craig B. Forry
Pepperdine Law Review
Although traditionally it has been recognized that the President is absolutely immune from personal damage liability for his official acts, there is no precedent for this rule in constitutional text or case law. However, in the case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court overruled lower federal courts in establishing a clear precedent for the President's absolute immunity from personal liability for civil damages. The author examines this decision in light of traditional principles of official immunity and analyzes the Court's holding from the standpoint of whether the President is indeed placed "above the law."
The Supreme Court Continues Its Journey Down The Ever Narrowing Paths Of Section 1983 And The Due Process Clause: An Analysis Of Parratt V. Taylor, Robert E. Palmer
The Supreme Court Continues Its Journey Down The Ever Narrowing Paths Of Section 1983 And The Due Process Clause: An Analysis Of Parratt V. Taylor, Robert E. Palmer
Pepperdine Law Review
After nearly a century of quiet slumber, the Supreme Court awoke the sleeping giant. In the past two decades, 42 U.S.C. §1983 has evolved into a judicial Frankenstein monster. Unable to control the beast, the Court has attempted to restrict the creature's movements by unnecessarily limiting its constitutional source. If followed to its logical conclusion, the Court's narrow reading of the Constitution may ultimately demote all due process violations to state tort remedies. This note traces the legislative and judicial evolution of section 1983 as well as the statute's present interaction with the due process clause. The vehicle for this …
Banning Books In Public Schools: Board Of Education V. Pico, Kelly Bowers
Banning Books In Public Schools: Board Of Education V. Pico, Kelly Bowers
Pepperdine Law Review
In Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico five members of the Supreme Court, in three separate opinions, held that the first amendment places some constraints on a school board's power to remove books from its school libraries. Although the opinions were couched in terms of preventing censorship, the effect of this decision was to create a right guaranteeing students access to books approved by the federal judiciary.
The Constitutional Issues Surrounding The Science-Religion Conflict In Public Schools: The Anti-Evolution Controversy, Michael M. Greenburg
The Constitutional Issues Surrounding The Science-Religion Conflict In Public Schools: The Anti-Evolution Controversy, Michael M. Greenburg
Pepperdine Law Review
Since the infamous Scopes trial the matter of the constitutional validity of the "anti-evolution" laws has plagued both legal scholars and school administrators. The courts have generally invalidated legislation which bans outright the teaching of evolution in public schools, but with the advent of the "balanced treatment" acts, a revival of this litigation has begun. The author examines the constitutional analysis utilized by the courts in dealing with the "anti-evolution" and "balanced treatment" acts and provides an historical perspective of the first amendment to question the Court's response to the issue.
United States V. Ross: Search And Seizure Made Simple, Donald L. Dalton
United States V. Ross: Search And Seizure Made Simple, Donald L. Dalton
Pepperdine Law Review
The United States Supreme Court in United States v. Ross vastly simplified the process of searching closed containers found in an automobile during a lawful Carroll search yet, at the same time, placed in question the importance of the search warrant in the scheme of fourth amendment jurisprudence by equating the policeman's determination of probable cause with that of the magistrate.