Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Immunity Under The Speech Or Debate Clause For Republican And From Questioning About Sources, Michigan Law Review
Immunity Under The Speech Or Debate Clause For Republican And From Questioning About Sources, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
Gravel v. United States, which arose out of Senator Mike Gravel's attempt to publicize the Pentagon Papers, concerned the scope of the immunity conferred upon a legislator and his aide under article I, section 6, of the United States Constitution. This provision, commonly called the "speech or debate clause," provides that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [United States Senators or Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place." Gravel is one of the few Supreme Court interpretations of this clause.
The Chief Justice As Leader: The Case Of Morrison Remick Waite, D. Grier Stephenson Jr.
The Chief Justice As Leader: The Case Of Morrison Remick Waite, D. Grier Stephenson Jr.
William & Mary Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Supreme Court, Compulsory Education, And The First Amendment's Religion Clauses, Philip B. Kurland
The Supreme Court, Compulsory Education, And The First Amendment's Religion Clauses, Philip B. Kurland
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Book Review Of A Question Of Judgment: The Fortas Case And The Struggle For The Supreme Court, Richard A. Williamson
Book Review Of A Question Of Judgment: The Fortas Case And The Struggle For The Supreme Court, Richard A. Williamson
William & Mary Law Review
No abstract provided.
An Empirical Study Of Six And Twelve-Member Jury Decision-Making Processes, Joan B. Kessler
An Empirical Study Of Six And Twelve-Member Jury Decision-Making Processes, Joan B. Kessler
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This article employs the techniques of the social sciences in testing a legal proposition. After setting forth the hypotheses and methodology utilized by the experiment discussed herein, it presents the results obtained by examining the deliberations of different-sized juries concerning the same civil litigation. This article does not purport to be definitive; it does, however, attempt to indicate one methodology of interdisciplinary research which can be undertaken and the utility of this research to both the social sciences and the legal profession.
Six-Member And Twelve-Member Juries: An Empirical Study Of Trial Results, Lawrence R. Mills
Six-Member And Twelve-Member Juries: An Empirical Study Of Trial Results, Lawrence R. Mills
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
The most convincing basis for criticism of the Supreme Court's conclusion that there is "no discernible difference" between the results reached by the six-member juries and those reached by the twelve-member juries would be empirical data suggesting a contrary conclusion. A recent study by the Institute of Judicial Administration comparing twelve-member and six-member juries in over 650 civil cases in New Jersey courts disclosed less than a two percentage-point difference between the respective percentages of verdicts rendered for plaintiffs by the two different-sized juries. The same study seemed to indicate that the damage awards in twelve-member jury cases were higher …
The Confrontation Clause And The Scope Of The Unavailability Requirement, Jerry J. Phillips
The Confrontation Clause And The Scope Of The Unavailability Requirement, Jerry J. Phillips
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
The confrontation clause is that language of the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution which provides, "[I]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Despite the seemingly absolute language of the confrontation clause, which would suggest that no hearsay evidence may be admitted against an accused in a criminal proceeding, its guarantee has been subject to exception. For example, when either a witness to an event or his testimony is shown to be unavailable, others will be allowed to testify as to the information which the declarant-witness has related …
Congressional Discretion In Dealing With The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Stuart M. Lockman
Congressional Discretion In Dealing With The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Stuart M. Lockman
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
On November 20, 1972, the Supreme Court, pursuant to statutory authority, adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence. The new rules of evidence were not to take effect, however, until ninety days after they had been submitted to Congress. The rules were officially submitted on February 5, 1973, but even before that date they had become the subject of extensive legislative debate. While some attorneys praise the codification of evidence rules as a progressive step, others maintain that certain of these promulgations will have an objectionable impact on the federal judicial system or that the Supreme Court has exceeded its authority …
Contract Rights And The Successor Employer: The Impact Of Burns Security, Michigan Law Review
Contract Rights And The Successor Employer: The Impact Of Burns Security, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
This Note will only briefly discuss the implications of Burns for NLRB proceedings. Instead, the focus will be on the impact of Burns on actions to compel arbitration under section 301. Is the rationale of Burns inconsistent with the rule established in Wiley for section 301 actions? If it does not undermine Wiley, does Burns indicate when employers will be deemed successors in future actions under section 301 to compel arbitration? Before examining these questions, however, it is necessary to consider the decisions of Wiley and Burns.