Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional law (7)
- Court (7)
- New york (7)
- Supreme court (7)
- Constitution (6)
-
- State (6)
- Criminal law (5)
- Federal (5)
- City (4)
- Civil procedure (4)
- Criminal procedure (4)
- Double jeopardy (4)
- Due process (4)
- Appellate (3)
- Civil rights (3)
- Court of appeals (3)
- Discrimination (3)
- Mistrial (3)
- New york state constitution (3)
- Prejudice (3)
- United states constitution (3)
- Bad faith (2)
- Civil law (2)
- Consent (2)
- County (2)
- Evidence (2)
- Judicial Review (2)
- Jurisdiction (2)
- Murder (2)
- Queens (2)
Articles 1 - 18 of 18
Full-Text Articles in Judges
The Need For A Central Panel Approach To Administrative Adjudication: Pros, Cons, And Selected Practices, Malcolm C. Rich, Alison C. Goldstein
The Need For A Central Panel Approach To Administrative Adjudication: Pros, Cons, And Selected Practices, Malcolm C. Rich, Alison C. Goldstein
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
The goal of this report is to document the growth of the central panel movement that has now emerged in a majority of states. This research is designed to provide data-informed recommendations to states and municipalities considering the adoption of a central panel system or the enlargement of the jurisdiction encompassed by an existing central panel as well as to states considering the adoption of a more final decision-making authority for their central panel ALJs. The work is also intended to inform the debate over whether the central panel approach is something that the federal government should consider. This research …
Standards Of Review In Texas, W. Wendell Hall, Ryan G. Anderson
Standards Of Review In Texas, W. Wendell Hall, Ryan G. Anderson
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract forthcoming
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department
Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division
Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)
Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Double Jeopardy Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department
Double Jeopardy Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Enforcing Principled Constitutional Limits On Federal Power: A Neo-Federalist Refinement Of Justice Cardozo's Jurisprudence, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.
Enforcing Principled Constitutional Limits On Federal Power: A Neo-Federalist Refinement Of Justice Cardozo's Jurisprudence, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.
William & Mary Law Review
Since the New Deal of the mid-1930s, Congress has asserted virtually absolute power to (1) “regulate Commerce ... among the States,” (2) tax and spend for the “general Welfare,” and (3) delegate “legislative Power[ ]” to the executive branch. From 1937 until 1994, the Supreme Court rejected every claim that such statutes had exceeded Congress’s Article I authority and usurped the states’ reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment. Over the past quarter century, conservative Justices have tried, and failed, to develop principled constitutional limits on the federal government while keeping the modern administrative and social welfare state largely intact.
The …
The “Law Of Ramsey County” – Reflections Of A Trial Judge On State Government Gridlock, Kathleen Gearin
The “Law Of Ramsey County” – Reflections Of A Trial Judge On State Government Gridlock, Kathleen Gearin
Mitchell Hamline Law Review
No abstract provided.
Sticks, Stones, And So-Called Judges: Why The Era Of Trump Necessitates Revisiting Presidential Influence On The Courts, Quinn W. Crowley
Sticks, Stones, And So-Called Judges: Why The Era Of Trump Necessitates Revisiting Presidential Influence On The Courts, Quinn W. Crowley
Indiana Law Journal
This Note will be primarily divided into three main sections. Part I of this Note will begin by discussing the importance of judicial independence in modern society and the role of elected officials in shaping the public perception of the courts. Additionally, as problems of judicial legitimacy are age-old and date back to America’s founding, Part I will include a brief discussion of an early clash between President Thomas Jefferson and the courts.
Parts II and III of this Note will seek to place President Trump’s conduct towards the judicial branch within the proper historical context. Part II examines the …
When Big Brother Becomes “Big Father”: Examining The Continued Use Of Parens Patriae In State Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Emily R. Mowry
When Big Brother Becomes “Big Father”: Examining The Continued Use Of Parens Patriae In State Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Emily R. Mowry
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The U.S. Constitution grants American citizens numerous Due Process rights; but, historically, the Supreme Court declined to extend these Due Process rights to children. Initially, common-law courts treated child offenders over the age of seven in the same manner as adult criminals. At the start of the 20th century, though, juvenile reformers assisted in creating unique juvenile courts that used the parens patriae doctrine and viewed children as delinquent youths in need of judicial parental guidance rather than punishment. Later, starting in 1967, the Supreme Court released multiple opinions extending certain constitutional Due Process rights to children in juvenile delinquency …
Of Hats And Robes: Judicial Review Of Nonadjudicative Article Iii Functions, Jeffrey L. Rensberger
Of Hats And Robes: Judicial Review Of Nonadjudicative Article Iii Functions, Jeffrey L. Rensberger
University of Richmond Law Review
We are accustomed to thinking of Article III courts and judges deciding cases and controversies. But, federal judges and courts have historically also engaged in official but nonadjudicative activities. In addition to a history of federal judges serving on nonjudicial commissions, federal judges and the Supreme Court participate in the rulemaking process for the federal procedural and evidentiary rules. Although some argue to the contrary, the Supreme Court has approved such arrangements in the face of separation of powers objections. Since Article III officers and courts perform nonadjudicative duties, the question arises of how federal courts who address a challenge …
Separation Of Powers In New Mexico: Item Vetoes, State Policy-Making, And The Role Of State Courts, Michael B. Browde
Separation Of Powers In New Mexico: Item Vetoes, State Policy-Making, And The Role Of State Courts, Michael B. Browde
Mitchell Hamline Law Review
No abstract provided.