Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Specifically Authorized By Binding Precedent Does Not Mean Suggested By Persuasive Precedent: Applying Good-Faith Exception After Davis V. United States, Zachary C. Bolitho
Specifically Authorized By Binding Precedent Does Not Mean Suggested By Persuasive Precedent: Applying Good-Faith Exception After Davis V. United States, Zachary C. Bolitho
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Demise Of Habeas Corpus And The Rise Of Qualified Immunity: The Court's Ever Increasing Limitations On The Development And Enforcement Of Constitutional Rights And Some Particularly Unfortunate Consequences, Stephen R. Reinhardt
Michigan Law Review
The collapse of habeas corpus as a remedy for even the most glaring of constitutional violations ranks among the greater wrongs of our legal era. Once hailed as the Great Writ, and still feted with all the standard rhetorical flourishes, habeas corpus has been transformed over the past two decades from a vital guarantor of liberty into an instrument for ratifying the power of state courts to disregard the protections of the Constitution. Along with so many other judicial tools meant to safeguard the powerless, enforce constitutional rights, and hold the government accountable, habeas has been slowly eroded by a …
Congressional Repair Of The Erie Derailment, Leonard V. Quigley
Congressional Repair Of The Erie Derailment, Leonard V. Quigley
Michigan Law Review
It is the thesis of this article that such legislative review and repair is required today on the part of the federal legislature in regard to the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts. Such reconsideration is particularly appropriate where, as in the analogous commerce clause area, the subject matter has been committed specifically to the Congress by the Constitution.
Remarks On The Theory Of Appellate Decision And The Rules Or Canons About How Statutes Are To Be Construed, Karl N. Llewellyn
Remarks On The Theory Of Appellate Decision And The Rules Or Canons About How Statutes Are To Be Construed, Karl N. Llewellyn
Vanderbilt Law Review
If a statute is to make sense, it must be read in the light of some assumed purpose. A statute merely declaring a rule, with no purpose or objective, is nonsense. If a statute is to be merged into a going system of law, moreover, the court must do the merging, and must in so doing take account of the policy of the statute-or else substitute its own version of such policy. Creative re- shaping of the net result is thus inevitable. But the policy of a statute is of two wholly different kinds-each kind somewhat limited in effect by …
Constitutional Law-Stare Decisis
Constitutional Law-Stare Decisis
Michigan Law Review
The defendant corporation, a lessee of school lands from the state of Oklahoma, protested the right of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to tax its net income. Held, under the rule of Gillespie v. Oklahoma, the income cannot be taxed without interfering with a state instrumentality. Four dissenting justices-Stone, Brandeis, Roberts, and Cardozo--admitted the applicability but denied the wisdom of the Gillespie case and the inability of the court to overrule itself, in Burnet v. Coronado Oil and Gas Co.