Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Toward A Pragmatic Model Of Judicial Decisionmaking: Why Tort Law Provides A Better Framework Than Constitutional Law For Deciding The Issue Of Medical Futility, Brent D. Lloyd
Seattle University Law Review
Recognizing that courts will eventually have to confront the issue of medical futility, this Comment argues that there is no principled basis for omitting these difficult questions from a legal analysis of the issue and that courts should therefore decide the issue in a manner that honestly confronts them. Specifically, the argument advanced here is that courts confronted with cases of medical futility should decide the issue under principles of tort law, rather than under principles of constitutional law. The crux of this argument is that tort principles provide an open-ended analytical framework conducive to considering troublesome questions like those …
The Denial Of A State Constitutional Right To Bail In Juvenile Proceedings: The Need For Reassessment In Washington State, Kathleen A. Baldi
The Denial Of A State Constitutional Right To Bail In Juvenile Proceedings: The Need For Reassessment In Washington State, Kathleen A. Baldi
Seattle University Law Review
Article I, section 20 of the Washington Constitution states that "[a]ll persons charged with crimes shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident, or the presumption great." Despite seemingly unequivocal language that this constitutional provision is applicable to "all persons," the Washington Supreme Court, in Estes v. Hopp, declared that juveniles do not have a constitutional right to bail. The Estes court engaged in little constitutional analysis, but instead, reasoned that juvenile proceedings are civil in nature and that article 1, section 20 applies only in criminal proceedings. Central to the Estes …