Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- ASCAP (1)
- Branzburg v. Hayes (1)
- Broadcast Music Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System Inc. (1)
- Douglas Oil Co. v. PetrolStops Northwest (1)
- Exxon Corp. v. Maryland (1)
-
- Garland v. Torre (1)
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. FTC (1)
- Group Life & Health Insurance Co. v. Royal Drug Co (1)
- Group Life & Health Insurance Co. v. Royal Drug Co. (1)
- Houchins v. KQED (1)
- Illinois v. Sarbaugh (1)
- In re GrandJury which Presented Indictments 76-149 and 77-72 (Anthracite Coal) (1)
- K-91 Inc. v. Gershwin Publishing Corp (1)
- McCarran-Ferguson Act (1)
- New Motor Vehicle Board v. Orrin W. Fox Co. (1)
- Paul v. Virginia (1)
- Pell v. Procunier (1)
- Reiter v. Sonotone Corp (1)
- Robinson-Patman Act (1)
- Saxbe v. Washington Post Co. (1)
- Sherman Act (1)
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Barry (1)
- United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co (1)
- UnitedStates v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association (1)
- Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Supreme Court And The Not-So-Privileged Press, John D. Epps
The Supreme Court And The Not-So-Privileged Press, John D. Epps
University of Richmond Law Review
The first amendment mandates freedom of the press, but the extent of that freedom has been the issue in scores of Supreme Court opinions. Whether press freedom is above and beyond that provided the general public by the first amendment has been a fertile question for debate. The question is more than academic, however; its answer has determined, for example, that reporters must be jailed for refusing to comply with subpoenas and that newsrooms can be searched for evidence of criminal activities.
Consistency And Predictability: Supreme Court Antitrust Decisions During The 1978 Term, Jeff Miles
Consistency And Predictability: Supreme Court Antitrust Decisions During The 1978 Term, Jeff Miles
University of Richmond Law Review
An article which discusses the Supreme Court's antitrust decisions during a term is necessarily general in nature, because temporal and spatial constraints do not allow in-depth treatises on each issue raised in each case. Rather, the writing should explain each decision, analyze the Court's reasoning, and assess the holding's effect on future cases and antitrust enforcement in general. Perhaps, however, the most crucial requirement is that it explain judicial philosophies and trends that aid counsel in advising their clients.