Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Courts (28)
- Constitutional Law (25)
- Judges (19)
- First Amendment (11)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (10)
-
- Legal History (8)
- Jurisprudence (7)
- Civil Procedure (6)
- Education Law (5)
- Fourteenth Amendment (5)
- Legislation (5)
- Religion Law (4)
- Administrative Law (3)
- Jurisdiction (3)
- Labor and Employment Law (3)
- Law and Gender (3)
- Legal Remedies (3)
- Litigation (3)
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation (2)
- Criminal Law (2)
- Disability Law (2)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (2)
- Legal Biography (2)
- Legal Education (2)
- President/Executive Department (2)
- Supreme Court of the United States (2)
- Torts (2)
- Banking and Finance Law (1)
- Commercial Law (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 56
Full-Text Articles in Law
Severity Under Scrutiny: The U.S. Supreme Court Battle Over The Fbar Penalty, Beckett Cantley, Geoffrey Dietrich
Severity Under Scrutiny: The U.S. Supreme Court Battle Over The Fbar Penalty, Beckett Cantley, Geoffrey Dietrich
The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law
In recent years, Congress strengthened federal regulation of foreign bank accounts held by United States citizens. In 1970, Congress passed the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), requiring U.S. citizens to report their foreign bank accounts using a form called the Foreign Bank Account Report, or “FBAR.” However, the Treasury Department rarely enforced this requirement. After the Patriot Act’s passage came the Bank Secrecy Act 2004 amendment, allowing the Treasury Department to delegate enforcement of U.S. foreign bank account reporting to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) through the FBAR. The amendment’s major change to the law concerned new penalties for non-willful FBAR …
Faux Advocacy In Amicus Practice, James G. Dwyer
Faux Advocacy In Amicus Practice, James G. Dwyer
Pepperdine Law Review
Amicus brief filing has reached “avalanche” volume. Supreme Court Justices and lower court judges look to these briefs particularly for non-case-specific factual information––“legislative facts”—relevant to a case. This Article calls attention to a recurrent yet unrecognized problem with amicus filings offering up legislative facts in the many cases centrally involving the most vulnerable members of society—namely, non-autonomous persons, including both adults incapacitated by mental illness, intellectual disability, or other condition, and children. Some amici present themselves as advocates for such persons but use the amicus platform to serve other constituencies and causes, making false or misleading factual presentations about the …
Slip Slidin' Away: The Erosion Of Apa Adjudication, William Funk
Slip Slidin' Away: The Erosion Of Apa Adjudication, William Funk
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
Although the enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) was intended to establish a uniform set of procedures applicable to adjudications "required by statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing," agencies have long sought to avoid those procedures, and, in particular, Administrative Law Judges, by substituting informal, non-APA adjudications. Over time, the courts have accelerated this substitution through a misapplication of three Supreme Court opinions. This article describes the original understanding of the APA and how that original understanding has been eroded over the years. The article then asks whether this is a problem …
Chevron Deference In The States: Lessons From Three States, Carrie Townsend Ingram
Chevron Deference In The States: Lessons From Three States, Carrie Townsend Ingram
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
The appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States has left many wondering if a change to the Chevron doctrine is impending. Justice Gorsuch’s colleague on the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas, shares similar views on Chevron. This article will compare the federal rule to three different states: Indiana, Delaware, and Arizona. Each state has taken a different path in determining that the judiciary should not give deference to an agency’s interpretation of the statutes that it is charged with enforcing. Delaware has affirmatively declared that the Chevron doctrine is not applicable in its state. A …
The Evolution And Decline Of The Effective-Vindication Doctrine In U.S. Arbitration Law, Okezie Chukwumerije
The Evolution And Decline Of The Effective-Vindication Doctrine In U.S. Arbitration Law, Okezie Chukwumerije
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal
This article offers information on the history, significance and role of the effective-vindication doctrine in U.S. arbitration law in promoting access to justice. It analyzes the significance of broad policy implications regarding the interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) by the Court facilitating the arbitration of commercial disputes and protecting the statutory rights of consumers in the context of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Randolph.
Earl Warren, The Warren Court And Civil Liberties , Steven J. Simmons
Earl Warren, The Warren Court And Civil Liberties , Steven J. Simmons
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Equal Rights Amendment And The Courts, Mary C. Dunlap
The Equal Rights Amendment And The Courts, Mary C. Dunlap
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Judicial Politics Of Obscenity , Robert Rosenblum
The Judicial Politics Of Obscenity , Robert Rosenblum
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
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.
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 …
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.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. V. Curran: Establishing An Implied Private Right Of Action Under The Commodity Exchange Act, Howard E. Hamann
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. V. Curran: Establishing An Implied Private Right Of Action Under The Commodity Exchange Act, Howard E. Hamann
Pepperdine Law Review
In the case of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, the United States Supreme Court held that there is an implied private right of action under the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended. As a result of this holding, a private party may maintain an action for damages caused by a violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. In this article, the author examines the Supreme Court's analysis and explores the future impact of the decision in light of the role the judiciary has in legislative matters.
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.
Religion And First Amendment Prosecutions: An Analysis Of Justice Black's Constitutional Interpretation, Constance Mauney
Religion And First Amendment Prosecutions: An Analysis Of Justice Black's Constitutional Interpretation, Constance Mauney
Pepperdine Law Review
Justice Hugo L. Black served on the United States Supreme Court over a period of thirty-four years, encompassing Supreme Court terms from 1937 to 1971. During this period, the subject of the constitutional limitations of the freedom of religion was increasingly subjected to intense social pressures. Justice Black figured prominently in the development of constitutional law as the Supreme Court attempted to give meaning to the establishment and free exercise clause of the first amendment. He wrote the majority opinions which dealt with the establishment clause in the Everson, McCulloin, Engel and Torcaso cases. Yet, on later occasions, Justice Black …
When "Yes" Means "No": Mccarran-Ferguson, The New York Convention, And The Limits Of Congressional Assent, Aaron L. Wells
When "Yes" Means "No": Mccarran-Ferguson, The New York Convention, And The Limits Of Congressional Assent, Aaron L. Wells
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal
The article focuses on the awards and arbitration of the resolution of the international commercial disputes with respect to the cross-border contracts and agreements. The enactment of the McCarran-Ferguson Act of the U.S. was for the prevention of the general applicability of the federal legislation in the authority of the states for the purpose of regulating the insurance industry. Information on the decision of the Supreme Court of the U.S. regarding this issue is also presented.
Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company V. Eeoc: Expanding The Scope Of Title Vii , Mark D. Klein
Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company V. Eeoc: Expanding The Scope Of Title Vii , Mark D. Klein
Pepperdine Law Review
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 prohibits sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. In Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, the United States Supreme Court extended the scope of the Act to include not only female employees, but also female dependents of male employees. The author examines the Supreme Court's analysis of and the legislative intent behind the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and explores the future impact of the decision.
Dr. Boulderlove; Or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Local Antitrust Liability , Kevin Charles Boyle
Dr. Boulderlove; Or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Local Antitrust Liability , Kevin Charles Boyle
Pepperdine Law Review
Community Communications v. Boulder arose in the context of local cable registration, but the decision raised the specter of antitrust liability for nearly any local regulatory activity. This comment reviews state legislation enacted in response to Boulder against a framework of the post-Boulder "Parker Doctrine" and its probable requirements.
Marsh V. Chambers: The Supreme Court Takes A New Look At The Establishment Clause, Diane L. Walker
Marsh V. Chambers: The Supreme Court Takes A New Look At The Establishment Clause, Diane L. Walker
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Social Justice And The Warren Court: A Preliminary Examination, Arthur S. Miller
Social Justice And The Warren Court: A Preliminary Examination, Arthur S. Miller
Pepperdine Law Review
Whether courts should attempt to advance social justice is a much debated topic in American jurisprudence. The conventional wisdom about the judicial process is to the contrary. In this article, Professor Arthur S. Miller suggests that the Supreme Court's innovative civil rights and civil liberties decisions during Chief Justice Earl Warren's tenure had the ultimate effect of helping to preserve the status quo of the social order. Its decisions, coming at a time of economic abundance, were a means of siphoning off discontent from disadvantaged groups at minimum social cost to the established order. The "activist" decisions under Warren were …
Ruckleshaus V. Sierra Club: Muddying The Waters Of Fee-Shifting In Federal Environmental Litigation , Jeanne A. Taylor
Ruckleshaus V. Sierra Club: Muddying The Waters Of Fee-Shifting In Federal Environmental Litigation , Jeanne A. Taylor
Pepperdine Law Review
In numerous federal environmental statutes, Congress gave plaintiffs the right to recover attorneys' fees when the court finds them "appropriate." In Ruckleshaus v. Sierra Club, the United States Supreme Court held that it was only "appropriate" to grant attorneys' fees when the plaintiff had at least partially prevailed on the merits. The decision ignored both the important role environmental groups play in the interpretation and development of regulatory programs through litigation and the ability of the lower courts to determine when attorneys' fees were "appropriate." The Court, instead, focused on the adversarial nature of such groups and the traditional American …
Reinforcement Of Middle Level Review Regarding Gender Classifications: Mississippi University For Women V. Hogan , Mary Ellen Shull
Reinforcement Of Middle Level Review Regarding Gender Classifications: Mississippi University For Women V. Hogan , Mary Ellen Shull
Pepperdine Law Review
In Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, the United States Supreme Court was presented with an equal protection challenge initiated by a male who was denied admission to a state-supported all-female school of nursing. After a review of relevant decisions in this area, the author examines the Supreme Court's intermediate level of scrutiny analysis and argues that application of a higher level of scrutiny to gender-based classifications is a prerequisite to true equality between the sexes.
Public Policy Against Religion: Doubting Thomas , Richard H. Seeburger
Public Policy Against Religion: Doubting Thomas , Richard H. Seeburger
Pepperdine Law Review
In free exercise cases, the Supreme Court has adopted a least restrictive alternative test in an attempt to maximize protection for religiously motivated practices. Because the least restrictive alternative test only considers the importance of the governmental interest and the availability of alternative means to accomplish those interests, thereby ignoring the importance of the burdened religious activity to the individual and the degree of burden on religious activity, all religious interests are treated equally when asserted against a governmental interest. Under such an inflexible and brittle test, the Supreme Court has recently denied religious claims which had previously been recognized. …
An Analysis Of Selective Service System V. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, Teresa L. Howell
An Analysis Of Selective Service System V. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, Teresa L. Howell
Pepperdine Law Review
Section 1113 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act passed in 1982 prohibits the receipt of Title IV educational funds by students who do not comply with draft registration requirements. In Selective Service System v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, the United States Supreme Court upheld section 1113 in the face of a multi-tiered constitutional challenge. After exploring the history of section 1113, the author examines the Supreme Court's analysis of each of the constitutional challenges: bill of attainder, privilege against self-incrimination, and equal protection. Finally, the author investigates the probable impact of the Court's decision.
Justice O'Connor And The First Amendment 1981-84, Edward V. Heck, Paula C. Arledge
Justice O'Connor And The First Amendment 1981-84, Edward V. Heck, Paula C. Arledge
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Equal Protection And The New Rational Basis Test: The Mentally Retarded Are Not Second Class Citizens In Cleburne, Gordon W. Johnson
Equal Protection And The New Rational Basis Test: The Mentally Retarded Are Not Second Class Citizens In Cleburne, Gordon W. Johnson
Pepperdine Law Review
Recently, the Fifth Circuit held that classifications involving the mentally retarded were quasi-suspect and should be reviewed under a heightened scrutiny analysis. The Supreme Court reversed that holding but granted the retarded a remedy by applying a more genuine scrutiny under the rational basis test. The Court's decision in City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. raises the question whether the Court intends to apply an increased level of scrutiny under the rational basis test or whether this case merely represents another ad hoc decision made on the horns of a dilemma. This Note discusses the uncertain impact …
A Comment On The Instruction Of Constitutional Law, William H. Rehnquist
A Comment On The Instruction Of Constitutional Law, William H. Rehnquist
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. V. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.: Does The Actual Malice Standard Of Gertz V. Robert Welch, Inc. Apply To Speech On Matters Of Purely Private Concern?, Jeff Boykin
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.