Law Commons^™

Preventative Pretrial Detention And The Failure Of Interest-Balancing Approaches To Due Process, Albert W. Alschuler

Michigan Law Review

This article, echoing Highmore's treatise of 1783, maintains that neither a legitimate nor a very important governmental interest can justify preventive detention in the absence of significant proof of past wrongdoing or an inability to control one's behavior. Both the Supreme Court's neglect of this issue and Congress' similar neglect in the preventive detention provisions of the Federal Bail Reform Act of 1984 reveal the extent to which cost-benefit analysis has captured American law and threatened core concepts of individual dignity.

The article does not oppose all forms of preventive pretrial detention. To the contrary, it recognizes that the detention …

Pennsylvania V. Ritchie, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

The National Park System And Development On Private Lands: Opportunities And Tools To Protect Park Resources, Michael Mantell

External Development Affecting the National Parks: Preserving "The Best Idea We Ever Had" (September 14-16)

34 pages.

Contains footnotes.

Constitutional Law—Due Process—Garnishment Procedures Must Provide For Notice To Postjudgment Debtor, Kathleen A. Hillegas

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Collection Of The Use Tax On Out-Of-State Mail-Order Sales, Paul J. Hartman

Vanderbilt Law Review

The states' inability to collect taxes on out-of-state mail-order sales constitutes a major fiscal problem. The federal government's Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations estimates that states are losing as much as 1.5 billion dollars each year in unpaid out-of-state mail-order purchase taxes.'

In addition to raising revenue, the compensating use tax serves two purposes: (1) The use tax helps local sellers to compete with retail dealers in other states who are subject to a lesser tax burden;and (2) the use tax avoids the likelihood of draining the taxing state's revenue by removing buyers' incentive or temptation to go bargain hunting …

Criminal Procedure—Charge Of Rape By Sexual Intercourse Sufficient To Convict Of Rape By Deviate Sexual Activity Under The Arkansas Rape Statute, Vickie A. Warner

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nonacquiescence: Outlaw Agencies, Imperial Courts, And The Perils Of Pluralism, Deborah Maranville

Vanderbilt Law Review

American history has witnessed recurrent conflict between the judiciary and the executive or legislative branches of our government.' The conflict generates heated passions perhaps because it involves both significant struggles for power and fundamental views about the rule of law. New opportunities for conflict have arisen as the number of administrative agencies has grown. In the last decade, administrative agencies and the courts have engaged in a continuing controversy over whether agencies must follow lower court precedents. Although the controversy has touched a number of agencies at least peripherally, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) and the Social …

Constitutional Law—Criminal Procedure—Eighth Amendment Bars Execution Of The Insane, Jonathan Taylor

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Case Digest, Law Review Staff

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND MEMBERS OF CLERGY OF VARIOUS DENOMINATIONS LACK STANDING TO CHALLENGE ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE VATICAN

--Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Reagan, 786 F.2d 194 (3d Cir.1986)

===========

EVEN THOUGH PROCEEDINGS IN THE FOREIGN FORUM MAY TAKE MORE TIME AND MAY YIELD A SMALLER RECOVERY THAN PROCEEDING IN THE UNITED STATES FORUM, THE FOREIGN FORUM MAY BE CONSIDERED AN ADEQUATE FORUM FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE FORRUM NON CONVENIENS DOCTRINE

--De Melo v. Lederle Laboratories, 801 F.2d 1058 (8th Cir. 1986)

===============

ASSERTION OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN CALIFORNIA OVER AN …

The Due Process Rights Of Postjudgment Debtors And Child Support Obligors, Diana Gribbon Motz, Andrew H. Baida

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Private Prosecutors In Criminal Contempt Actions Under Rule 42(B) Of The Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure, Patrcia Moran

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gates, Leon And The Compromise Of Adjudicatory Fairness: (Part Ii)-Aggressive Majoritarianism, Willful Deafness, And The New Exception To The Exclusionary Rule, Joel J. Finer

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This Article will offer an elaboration of the idea of judicial "aggressiveness" (which Professor Stone, by and large, leaves undefined) through examination of the majority opinion in United States v. Leon and its application in Massachusetts v. Sheppard. It will also advance the thesis that the majority in Leon exhibited a particular kind of aggressiveness--willful deafness.

Constitutional Law-Fourth Amendment-Use Of Deadly Force To Seize Fleeing Felony Suspects (Tennessee V. Garner), Georgia Mcmillen

NYLS Journal of Human Rights

No abstract provided.

The Trademark Counterfeiting Act Of 1984: A Sensible Legislative Response To The Ills Of Commercial Counterfeiting, Brian J. Kearney

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This student note explores the recently passed Trademark Counterfeit Act of 1984, viewing it in the context of ever-growing counterfeiting of commercial, agricultural, and aeronautical trademarks. The author examines the history of US trademark regulation, beginning with the Lanham Act of 1946, and then predicts the effects the 1984 Act will have on commercial practice, antitrust law, the sale of goods on the "gray market," and due process implications. The author concludes that though ex parte remedies will be necessary to maintain trademark practices, the 1984 Act does not represent any sort of infringement on due process or commercial practice, …

Compulsory Process, Right To, Peter K. Westen

Book Chapters

The first state to adopt a constitution following the Declaration of Independence (New Jersey, 1776) guaranteed all criminal defendants the same ‘‘privileges of witnesses’’ as their prosecutors. Fifteen years later, in enumerating the constitutional rights of accused persons, the framers of the federal Bill of Rights bifurcated what New Jersey called the ‘‘privileges of witnesses’’ into two distinct but related rights: the Sixth Amendment right of the accused ‘‘to be confronted with the witnesses against him,’’ and his companion Sixth Amendment right to ‘‘compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.’’ The distinction between witnesses ‘‘against’’ the accused and witnesses …