Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Fourteenth Amendment
Constitutional Law-Due Process-Right Of Condemned Prisoner To A Hearing On Claim Of Supervening Insanity, Robert P. Griffin S.Ed.
Constitutional Law-Due Process-Right Of Condemned Prisoner To A Hearing On Claim Of Supervening Insanity, Robert P. Griffin S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Petitioner was convicted of murder in a Georgia court and sentenced to die by electrocution. He made application to the governor to postpone execution on the ground that he had become insane after conviction. The governor, acting under authority of a state statute, appointed three physicians who conducted an examination of petitioner and found him sane. Thereupon, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a state court contending that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment entitled him to a hearing on his insanity claim before a judicial or administrative tribunal at which he could …
Constitutional Law-Corporations-Artificial "Persons" And The Fourteenth Amendment, Robert P. Griffin S.Ed.
Constitutional Law-Corporations-Artificial "Persons" And The Fourteenth Amendment, Robert P. Griffin S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
That a corporation is a "person" for certain purposes within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore entitled to invoke its protection, is considered by students of constitutional law to be well settled. For that reason the dissent of Justice Douglas in the recent case of Wheeling Steel Corporation v. Glander demands more than passing recognition. Therein he restates and adds his support to the view of Justice Black that the word "person" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment refers exclusively to human beings and affords no protection whatsoever to corporations against arbitrary state action.
Constitutional Law-Due Process-Right To Counsel In State Courts, Charles Myneder
Constitutional Law-Due Process-Right To Counsel In State Courts, Charles Myneder
Michigan Law Review
Petitioner was tried before a jury on a charge of larceny, convicted and sentenced to a penitentiary term. He did not request counsel, and the court made no offer to appoint counsel. In the course of the trial, petitioner was prejudiced by his failure to object to certain errors in evidence. In a petition for habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, he alleged denial of a constitutional right of counsel. On answer, it was averred that in petitioner's conduct of his own defense he displayed a "familiarity with legal process in the criminal courts." A transcript of petitioner's …