Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional (2)
- Jurisprudence (2)
- Supreme Court (2)
- 2009 (1)
- Abortion (1)
-
- CPLR 5601 (1)
- CPLR 5602 (1)
- Common Law (1)
- Comstock (1)
- Constitutional rights (1)
- Criminal defendants (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Cruel and unusual punishment (1)
- Cruel punishment (1)
- Dicta (1)
- Discretion (1)
- Dismissal (1)
- Due Process (1)
- Either amendment (1)
- Ethical lawyering (1)
- Fair trial (1)
- Florida (1)
- Graham (1)
- Holland (1)
- Judge Robert Smith (1)
- Judicial Restraint (1)
- Justice John Paul Stevens (1)
- Juvenile (1)
- Kachalsky v. Cacace (1)
- Kentucky (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Self-Conscious Dicta: The Origins Of Roe V. Wade’S Trimester Framework, Randy Beck
Self-Conscious Dicta: The Origins Of Roe V. Wade’S Trimester Framework, Randy Beck
Scholarly Works
One of the controversies arising from Roe v. Wade (1973), has concerned whether the conclusions undergirding the opinion's “trimester framework” should be considered part of the holding of the case, or instead classified as dicta. Different Supreme Court opinions have spoken to this question in different ways. This article reviews materials from the files of Justices who participated in Roe, seeking insight as to what the Court thought about the issue at the time. The article concludes that Justices in the Roe majority understood the opinion’s trimester framework to consist largely of dicta, unnecessary to a ruling on the constitutionality …
The Last Common Law Justice: The Personal Jurisdiction Jurisprudence Of Justice John Paul Stevens, Rodger D. Citron
The Last Common Law Justice: The Personal Jurisdiction Jurisprudence Of Justice John Paul Stevens, Rodger D. Citron
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court Criminal Law Jurisprudence: Fair Trials, Cruel Punishment, And Ethical Lawyering—October 2009 Term, Richard Klein
Supreme Court Criminal Law Jurisprudence: Fair Trials, Cruel Punishment, And Ethical Lawyering—October 2009 Term, Richard Klein
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
An Illusory Right To Appeal: Substantial Constitutional Questions At The New York Court Of Appeals, Meredith R. Miller
An Illusory Right To Appeal: Substantial Constitutional Questions At The New York Court Of Appeals, Meredith R. Miller
Scholarly Works
The jurisdiction of the New York Court of Appeals has long been shrouded in mystery. When the Court dismisses an appeal, it provides a boilerplate, one-sentence decretal entry, which gives the litigants little, if any, meaningful indication of the Court’s reasons for dismissal. In February 2010, however, the world received a rare glimpse into the Court’s jurisdiction when, in Kachalsky v. Cacace, 925 N.E.2d 80 (N.Y. 2010), Judge Robert Smith dissented from the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the appeal. Judge Smith voted to retain the appeal, arguing that the Court was using the requirement of “substantiality” to invoke discretion …