Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (1)
- Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. (Supreme Court case) (1)
- Confrontation clause (Law) (1)
- Court system (1)
- Courts -- United States (1)
-
- Exceptions (Law) -- Lawsuits & claims (1)
- Inc. (Supreme Court case) (1)
- Judicial deference (1)
- King v. Burwell (Supreme Court case) (1)
- Law -- Interpretation & construction (1)
- Law -- Interpretation & construction -- United States -- States (1)
- Legal status of witnesses (1)
- Ohio v. Clark (Supreme Court case) (1)
- Political questions & judicial power -- United States -- Lawsuits & claims (1)
- Precedent (Law) (1)
- Religious right -- United States (1)
- Right to trial by jury (1)
- Rules (1)
- Sentences (Criminal procedure) -- United States -- Law & legislation (1)
- Sentencing guidelines (Criminal procedure) -- United States (1)
- Sentencing reform -- Law & legislation (1)
- Statutes -- United States -- States (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- United States (1)
- United States. Supreme Court (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Minor Courts, Major Questions, Michael Coenen
Incomplete Sentences: Hobby Lobby’S Corporate Religious Rights, The Criminally Culpable Corporate Soul, And The Case For Greater Alignment Of Organizational And Individual Sentencing, Kenya J.H. Smith
Louisiana Law Review
The article explores the history and policies that explain the disparate sentencing treatment of organizations and individuals under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and attendant sentencing guidelines. It reports the Supreme Court's recognition of a business corporation's religious rights in the case "Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc."
The Road To Understanding The Confrontation Clause: Ohio V. Clark Makes A U-Turn, Julien Petit
The Road To Understanding The Confrontation Clause: Ohio V. Clark Makes A U-Turn, Julien Petit
Louisiana Law Review
The article discusses the Confrontation Clause and summarizes the state of the law before the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case "Ohio v. Clark." Topics discussed include problems that the decision caused and how these problems affect the admissibility of statements into evidence; and ways in which use of Confrontation Clause teat can eliminate confusion related to issue.
Rules Against Rulification, Michael Coenen
Rules Against Rulification, Michael Coenen
Journal Articles
The Supreme Court often confronts the choice between bright-line rules and open-ended standards — a point well understood by commentators and the Court itself. Far less understood is a related choice that arises once the Court has opted for a standard over a rule: May lower courts develop subsidiary rules to facilitate their own application of the Supreme Court’s standard, or must they always apply that standard in its pure, un-“rulified” form? In several recent cases, spanning a range of legal contexts, the Court has endorsed the latter option, fortifying its first-order standards with second-order “rules against rulification.” Rules against …