Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Supreme Court of the United States (14)
- Constitutional Law (4)
- Courts (3)
- First Amendment (3)
- Legal History (3)
-
- Judges (2)
- Law and Politics (2)
- Legislation (2)
- President/Executive Department (2)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Commercial Law (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Labor and Employment Law (1)
- Law and Philosophy (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Privacy Law (1)
- Property Law and Real Estate (1)
- State and Local Government Law (1)
- Taxation-Federal (1)
- Institution
Articles 1 - 15 of 15
Full-Text Articles in Law
Section 3: Privacy, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 3: Privacy, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 6: First Amendment, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 6: First Amendment, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 1: Moot Court: Bryant V. Hill, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 1: Moot Court: Bryant V. Hill, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 5: Criminal Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 5: Criminal Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 2: Property And Economic Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 2: Property And Economic Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 4: Civil Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 4: Civil Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Hate Speech, Offensive Speech, And Public Discourse In America, Edward J. Eberle
Hate Speech, Offensive Speech, And Public Discourse In America, Edward J. Eberle
Law Faculty Scholarship
In this article, Professor Eberle discusses several limitations on governmental power to regulate public discourse. After examining the United States Supreme Court decisions of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paula nd Wisconsin v. Mitchell, Professor Eberle concludes that government should refrain from regulating speech itself. Rather, any restrictions should focus strictly on the problematic conduct underlying the speech which justifies regulation. Professor Eberle also concludes that the Court has implicitly recognized two distinct subcategories of "content" discrimination and viewpoint discrimination. Both subcategories are presumptively unconstitutional and nominally subject to conventional strict scrutiny. The Court, however, finds viewpoint discrimination more dangerous …
Voice In Government: The People, Emily Calhoun
Unitariness And Independence: Solicitor General Control Over Independent Agency Litigation, Neal Devins
Unitariness And Independence: Solicitor General Control Over Independent Agency Litigation, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
With a few exceptions, the Solicitor General controls all aspects of independent agency litigation before the Supreme Court. Solicitor General control of Supreme Court litigation creates a tension between independent agency freedom and the Solicitor General's authority. On the one hand, Solicitor General control provides the United States with a unitary voice before the Supreme Court, and provides the Court with a trustworthy litigator to explicate the government's position. On the other hand, such control may undermine the autonomy of independent agency decision making. In this Article, the author argues for a hybrid model of independent agency litigation in the …
A Heterodox Catechism, Paul Campos
The Death And Transfiguration Of Frye, Richard D. Friedman
The Death And Transfiguration Of Frye, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
The rule of Frye v. United States was seventy years old, and had long dominated American law on the question of how well established a scientific principle must be for it to provide the basis for expert testimony. Even after the passage of the Federal Rules of Evidence, several of the federal circuits, as well as various states, purported to adhere to Frye's "general acceptance" standard. But now, unanimously, briefly, and with no apparent angst, the United States Supreme Court has held in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. that the Frye rule is incompatible with the Federal Rules.
Switching Time And Other Thought Experiments: The Hughes Court And Constitutional Transformation, Richard D. Friedman
Switching Time And Other Thought Experiments: The Hughes Court And Constitutional Transformation, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
For the most part, the Supreme Court's decisions in 1932 and 1933 disappointed liberals. The two swing Justices, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Justice Owen J. Roberts, seemed to have sided more with the Court's four conservatives than with its three liberals. Between early 1934 and early 1935, however, the Court issued three thunderbolt decisions, all by five-to-four votes on the liberal side and with either Hughes or Roberts writing for the majority over the dissent of the conservative foursome: in January 1934, Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell' severely limited the extent to which the Contracts Clause …
A Reaffirmation: The Authenticity Of The Roberts Memorandum, Or Felix The Non-Forger (Justices Felix Frankfurter And Owen J. Roberts), Richard D. Friedman
A Reaffirmation: The Authenticity Of The Roberts Memorandum, Or Felix The Non-Forger (Justices Felix Frankfurter And Owen J. Roberts), Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In the December 1955 issue of this Law Review, Justice Felix Frankfurter published a tribute to his late friend and colleague, Owen J. Roberts.' The tribute centered on what Frankfurter claimed was the text of a memorandum that Roberts wrote in 1945 to explain his conduct in the critical minimum wage cases of 1936 and 1937, Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo2 and West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish.' Scholars have often challenged the adequacy of Roberts's account of why he cast decisive votes for the conservatives in Tipaldo and for the liberals in West Coast Hotel.4 Until recently, …
Taxation Of Punitive Damages Obtained In A Personal Injury Claim, Douglas A. Kahn
Taxation Of Punitive Damages Obtained In A Personal Injury Claim, Douglas A. Kahn
Articles
The author explains that in recent court opinions and commentaries concerning whether punitive damages are taxable, considerable weight has been given to a negative inference that appears to lurk in a 1989 amendment to the relevant code provision, section 104(a)(2). To the contrary, he argues, the legislative history of that amendment and the form that the bill had when it was reported out of the Conference Committee establish beyond doubt that no such inference is warranted.
Divergent Strategies: Union Organizing And Alternative Dispute Resolution, Theodore J. St. Antoine
Divergent Strategies: Union Organizing And Alternative Dispute Resolution, Theodore J. St. Antoine
Articles
The Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations, the so-called "Dunlop Commission," is focusing on three principal subjects: (1) union organizing, (2) worker participation in management decision making, and (3) alternative dispute resolution (ADR). I am going to concentrate on the last, but first I would like to say a few words about union organizing. After all, unionization and collective bargaining - and for that matter, worker participation as well - can fairly be viewed as special forms of alternative dispute resolution.