Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (15)
- Criminal Law (4)
- Criminal Procedure (2)
- Environmental Law (2)
- Family Law (2)
-
- Fourth Amendment (2)
- Torts (2)
- Agriculture Law (1)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Courts (1)
- Education Law (1)
- Election Law (1)
- Evidence (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Food and Drug Law (1)
- Intellectual Property Law (1)
- International Law (1)
- Internet Law (1)
- Judges (1)
- Juvenile Law (1)
- Law and Gender (1)
- Law and Race (1)
- Law of the Sea (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Privacy Law (1)
- Property Law and Real Estate (1)
- Religion Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- Fourteenth Amendment (5)
- Due Process Clause (4)
- Equal protection (3)
- Fourteenth amendment (3)
- Affirmative Action (2)
-
- Confrontation Clause (2)
- Fundamental rights (2)
- Race (2)
- Torts (2)
- 14th Amendment (1)
- 601 (1)
- 602 (1)
- 603 (1)
- 611 (1)
- 806 (1)
- AEDPA (1)
- Abstract Originalism (1)
- Alternative suspect admissibility in Maine (1)
- Alternative suspect evidence (1)
- Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (1)
- Appeal (1)
- Broccoli (1)
- Caregivers (1)
- Child custody (1)
- Child witness (1)
- Class of one (1)
- Class-based (1)
- Commerce Clause (1)
- Competency (1)
- Congressional power (1)
Articles 1 - 17 of 17
Full-Text Articles in Fourteenth Amendment
State V. Violette: Harsher Resentencing Encounters A Bolder Resumption Of Vindictiveness, Thomas C. Bradley
State V. Violette: Harsher Resentencing Encounters A Bolder Resumption Of Vindictiveness, Thomas C. Bradley
Maine Law Review
Twenty-one years ago, in Weeks v. State, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, adopted a rule to prevent judicial vindictiveness when resentencing defendants who had successfully appealed their conviction and been reconvicted. The Weeks court adopted as a state due process protection the United States Supreme Court's rule laid down the preceding year in North Carolina v. Pearce. The Pearce rule provides that harsher resentencing of such defendants creates a presumption of constitutionally prohibited vindictiveness unless the harsher sentence is explicitly based on some identifiable misconduct by the defendant since the prior sentencing. Thus, the Law …
State Immunity Doctrine: Demoting The Patent System, Charles C. Wong
State Immunity Doctrine: Demoting The Patent System, Charles C. Wong
Maine Law Review
Congress enacted the Patent Remedy Clarification Act (PRCA) in 1992, which authorized patent holders to sue a state for patent infringement in federal court. The PRCA clearly expressed Congress's intent to abrogate Eleventh Amendment state sovereign immunity as required by Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon. In 1996, Seminole Tribe v. Florida changed the landscape of congressional power to abrogate state immunity by declaring Congress may do so only if acting pursuant to its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In his dissent, Justice Stevens forecasted that the Seminole Tribe decision would effectively leave patent holders injured by an …
Rideout V. Riendeau: Grandparent Visitation In Maine After Troxel, Theodore A. Small
Rideout V. Riendeau: Grandparent Visitation In Maine After Troxel, Theodore A. Small
Maine Law Review
Rideout v. Riendeau presented a case in which two grandparents, Rose and Chesley Rideout, sought visitation of their three grandchildren. Though the Rideouts had served as the childrens' “primary caregivers and custodians” for significant periods of time, the childrens' parents, Heaven-Marie Riendeau, who was the Rideouts' daughter, and Jeffrey Riendeau, ended all contact between the children and the Rideouts due to a strained relationship between the Rideouts and the Riendeaus. The Rideouts filed a complaint pursuant to Maine's Grandparents Visitation Act (the Act), which allows grandparents to bring a petition for visitation when there is a “sufficient existing relationship between …
With Malice Toward One: Malice And The Substantive Law In "Class Of One" Equal Protection Claims In The Wake Of Village Of Willowbrook V. Olech, Shaun M. Gehan
With Malice Toward One: Malice And The Substantive Law In "Class Of One" Equal Protection Claims In The Wake Of Village Of Willowbrook V. Olech, Shaun M. Gehan
Maine Law Review
It may be time to relearn the fundamentals of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. According to the Supreme Court, in a brief and unassuming per curiam opinion in Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, violations of equal protection do not of necessity rely on class-based discriminations. Federal, state, and local governments can violate the equal protection rights of an individual qua individual; a so-called “class of one.” The ramifications of this decision are just now becoming clear, and it has already led to some surprising results in areas of statutory law thought to be well settled. The only …
The Crossroads Of A Legal Fiction And The Reality Of Families, Andrew L. Weinstein
The Crossroads Of A Legal Fiction And The Reality Of Families, Andrew L. Weinstein
Maine Law Review
In Adoption of M.A., the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, held that an unmarried, same-sex couple could file a joint petition for adoption of two foster children in their care. This recent decision is only a fraction of a story that originated a long time ago when same-sex couples began raising children. This Comment begins by examining the role of the state courts and the United States Supreme Court in their exposition of family law relating to adoption by same-sex couples. The United States Supreme Court has periodically weighed in on family law and parenting in …
Constitution Day Lecture: Constitutional Law And Tort Law: Injury, Race, Gender, And Equal Protection, Jennifer B. Wriggins
Constitution Day Lecture: Constitutional Law And Tort Law: Injury, Race, Gender, And Equal Protection, Jennifer B. Wriggins
Maine Law Review
The focus of today’s annual Constitution Day lecture at the University of Maine School of Law is on the Fourteenth Amendment and specifically how the Equal Protection Clause relates to tort law. First, I will talk about the Equal Protection Clause in general—what it says, and some of what it has been held to mean—particularly where government makes distinctions based on race and gender. Second, I will discuss two historical tort cases that violate equal protection on the basis of race. In doing so, I uncover the racial history of tort law that has been hidden in plain sight. I …
Fisher V. University Of Texas At Austin: Navigating The Narrows Between Grutter And Parents Involved, Kimberly A. Pacelli
Fisher V. University Of Texas At Austin: Navigating The Narrows Between Grutter And Parents Involved, Kimberly A. Pacelli
Maine Law Review
Universities’ use of race as a factor in their admissions decisions has been a divisive issue both in the legal system and in political discourse. Opponents of affirmative action have challenged racial preferences in public university admissions under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Individuals who find themselves denied a coveted seat in a university class and suspect that racial preferences are to blame will often challenge their rejection as a denial of their state’s “equal protection of the laws.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently considered whether the University of Texas at …
Enough Is Enough: The Law Court's Decision To Functionally Raise The "Reasonable Connection" Relevancy Standard In State V. Mitchell, Robert P. Hayes
Enough Is Enough: The Law Court's Decision To Functionally Raise The "Reasonable Connection" Relevancy Standard In State V. Mitchell, Robert P. Hayes
Maine Law Review
In State v. Mitchell, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, affirmed a jury verdict finding Thomas Mitchell guilty of a 1983 murder. In doing so, the Law Court examined two issues: First, whether the trial court “abused its discretion in excluding evidence of an alternative suspect”; and second, whether the trial court’s decision to admit evidence stemming from an autopsy performed two decades before the trial violated the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. In reaching the alternative suspect decision, the Law Court held that the evidence proffered by Mitchell did not establish a reasonable …
Enforcement Dissonance: Lobsters, The Legislature, And Federal Waters In State V. Thomas, Christopher J. Rauscher
Enforcement Dissonance: Lobsters, The Legislature, And Federal Waters In State V. Thomas, Christopher J. Rauscher
Maine Law Review
Consider the following: You, a Maine resident, and your friend, a Massachusetts resident, have gone for a weekend trout fishing trip to Acadia National Park in Downeast Maine. The two of you are happily catching trout, and then each of you hook a bass and reel it in. Keeping the bass is illegal under Maine law but not banned by the National Park. Along comes a Maine game warden, who spies the two of you and cites only you with a fine for catching and keeping the bass. The warden says nothing to the Massachusetts resident who continues to fish, …
God's Green Earth? The Environmental Impacts Of Religious Land Use, Kellen Zale
God's Green Earth? The Environmental Impacts Of Religious Land Use, Kellen Zale
Maine Law Review
Boulder County, Colorado has been at the forefront of the environmental movement for decades. Starting with its citizens’ vote in 1967 to implement a tax specifically to preserve open space, the city has long been known for its progressive environmental policies. At the center of Boulder’s environmental protection efforts is a comprehensive system of land use regulations designed to mitigate the slow chokehold of ever-encroaching development on wetlands and open space, on groundwater and soils, and on wildlife and native species. Numerous communities across the country have followed Boulder’s much-praised model and enacted their own environmental zoning laws to protect …
"Sweet Childish Days": Using Developmental Psychology Research In Evaluating The Admissibility Of Out-Of-Court Statements By Young Children, Lynn Mclain
Maine Law Review
Young children are frequently precluded from testifying at trial on the grounds of incompetency because they cannot answer questions about abstract concepts regarding “truth” and “lies.” In this situation, should the child’s earlier, out-of-court statements disclosing the abuse and identifying the abuser also be inadmissible? The stakes are huge. If young children cannot testify, and their out-of-court statements are precluded, they simply become safe prey, unprotected by the judicial system. The pivotal question becomes, are there procedures that can ensure fairness both to children and to their alleged abusers? This article argues that a child’s testimonial incapacity at trial ought …
Federal Habeas Review Of State Court Convictions: Incoherent Law But An Essential Right, Lynn Adelman
Federal Habeas Review Of State Court Convictions: Incoherent Law But An Essential Right, Lynn Adelman
Maine Law Review
I thank the editors of the Maine Law Review for the opportunity to participate in a discussion about the present state of post-conviction review of criminal convictions. This discussion is important and timely both because the quality of the procedures by which state prisoners can obtain post-conviction review varies greatly from state to state and because state prisoners who seek federal court review of their constitutional claims by petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus face many obstacles. As a federal district judge, my experience is primarily with the later problem. Thus, in this article, I will offer a few …
Liberty Of Palate, Samuel R. Wiseman
Liberty Of Palate, Samuel R. Wiseman
Maine Law Review
As lawmakers concerned with problems as diverse as childhood obesity, animal cruelty, and listeria have increasingly focused their attention on consumers, legal issues surrounding food choice have recently attracted much broader interest. Bans on large sodas in New York City, fast food chains in South Los Angeles, and foie gras in California and Chicago have provoked national controversy, as have federal raids on raw milk sellers. In response, various groups have decried restrictions on their ability to consume the food products of their choice. A few groups have organized around the principle of what we might call liberty of palate, …
Personal Jurisdiction In The Data Age: Macdermid V. Deiter's Adaptation Of International Shoe Amidst Supreme Court Uncertainty, Ryan Almy
Maine Law Review
In MacDermid, Inc. v. Deiter, the Second Circuit held that a Connecticut court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant who allegedly used a computer in Canada to remotely access a computer server located in Connecticut in order to misappropriate proprietary, confidential electronic information belonging to a Connecticut corporation. This Note argues that, given the factual elements before the court, MacDermid was an unsurprising, orthodox, and proper holding in the context of personal jurisdiction jurisprudence. However, the facts in MacDermid, and the corresponding limits inherent in the Second Circuit’s holding, reveal potentially gaping holes in our modern personal jurisdiction framework …
The Post-Crawford Rise In Voter Id Laws: A Solution Still In Search Of A Problem, David M. Faherty
The Post-Crawford Rise In Voter Id Laws: A Solution Still In Search Of A Problem, David M. Faherty
Maine Law Review
In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter identification law, which required registered voters to present government-issued photo identification at the polls. Instead of applying heighted scrutiny to a law that had an effect on voter qualifications, the Court simply balanced the asserted state interest of protecting the integrity and reliability of elections by preventing voter fraud against the burden imposed on eligible voters who were prevented from voting because they did not possess the required form of photo identification. Not persuaded by the fact that Indiana could not point to a single instance of …
The Magic Mirror Of "Original Meaning": Recent Approaches To The Fourteenth Amendment, Bret Boyce
The Magic Mirror Of "Original Meaning": Recent Approaches To The Fourteenth Amendment, Bret Boyce
Maine Law Review
Nearly a century and a half after its adoption, debate continues to rage over the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of basic rights. Of the three clauses in the second sentence of Section One, the latter two (the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses) loom very large in modern Supreme Court decisions, while the first (the Privileges or Immunities Clause) is of minimal importance, having been invoked only once to strike down a state law. Originalists—those who hold that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its original meaning—have often deplored this state of affairs. Many have argued …
Reason And Reasonableness: The Necessary Diversity Of The Common Law, Frederic G. Sourgens
Reason And Reasonableness: The Necessary Diversity Of The Common Law, Frederic G. Sourgens
Maine Law Review
This Article addresses the central concept of “reasonableness” in the common law and constitutional jurisprudence. On the basis of three examples, the common law of torts, the common law of contracts, and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the Article notes that different areas of the law follow fundamentally inconsistent utilitarian, pragmatic, and formalist reasonableness paradigms. The significance of this diversity of reasonableness paradigms remains largely under-theorized. This Article submits that the diversity of reasonableness paradigms is a necessary feature of the common law. It theorizes that the utilitarian, pragmatic and formalistic paradigms are structural elements driving the common law norm-generation process. This …