Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Moiwana Village V. Suriname: A Portal Into Recent Jurisprudential Developments Of The Inter-American Court Of Human Rights, Thomas Antkowiak
Moiwana Village V. Suriname: A Portal Into Recent Jurisprudential Developments Of The Inter-American Court Of Human Rights, Thomas Antkowiak
Faculty Articles
On June 15, 2005, the Inter-American Court issued its judgment in Moiwana Village v. Suriname, which held Suriname responsible for numerous human rights violations and ordered several remedial measures. In a separate opinion, one of the Tribunal's veteran judges, Ant¿nio Can¿ado-Trindade, wrote that the case "raises issues of great transcendence." Certainly, the decision illustrates several of the Court's latest jurisprudential developments, and navigates a few rising socio-political tides in South and Central America. This brief essay seeks to demonstrate how the Moiwana case: a) presents factual situations that are increasingly common before the Court; b) continues to develop key legal …
Dueling Federalists: Supreme Court Decisions With Multiple Opinions Citing The Federalist, 1986-2007, Matthew J. Festa
Dueling Federalists: Supreme Court Decisions With Multiple Opinions Citing The Federalist, 1986-2007, Matthew J. Festa
Seattle University Law Review
This Article examines the use of history in legal interpretation through an empirical analysis of one of the most prominent examples of historical evidence in law: citations to The Federalist in Supreme Court Justices' published opinions. In particular, the Article examines a phenomenon that has occurred frequently over the last two decades, but has thus far been virtually ignored: the citation by different Justices to the same historical source (such as The Federalist) to support divergent or opposing historical interpretations of legal meaning. Although the use of historical evidence in constitutional interpretation is itself much debated, The Federalist continues …
The Difference A Day Makes: How Courts Circumvent Federal Immigration Law At Sentencing, David S. Keenan
The Difference A Day Makes: How Courts Circumvent Federal Immigration Law At Sentencing, David S. Keenan
Seattle University Law Review
Efforts in criminal courts to avoid deportation as a result of convictions are prevalent throughout the United States. Although defendants in Washington have a statutory right to be advised of the potential immigration consequences of a guilty plea, there is no statutory or constitutional requirement that a judge take immigration consequences into consideration in imposing sentence. Nonetheless, as was the case in the assault on Micah Painter, judges can and do make what are effectively policy judgments when sentencing defendants, with an eye toward helping them avoid deportation.
Chinks In The Armor: Municipal Authority To Enact Shoreline Permit Moratoria After Biggers V. City Of Bainbridge Island, Ryan M. Carson
Chinks In The Armor: Municipal Authority To Enact Shoreline Permit Moratoria After Biggers V. City Of Bainbridge Island, Ryan M. Carson
Seattle University Law Review
Why would a relatively mundane dispute over what amounts to a few cubic yards of concrete warrant the extensive discussion encom passed in this Note? This dispute gives rise to a fundamental question about power: What is the scope of municipal power under one of Washington's most important environmental protection laws? Additionally, questions arise about competing normative values within environmental protection, property rights, and responsible land use and development. Placed against a backdrop of growing contentiousness surrounding these issues in Washington politics, the relevance and timeliness of these questions cannot be doubted.
Serving The "Apparently Under The Influence" Patron: The Ramifications Of Barrett V. Lucky Seven Saloon, Inc., Kathryn M. Knudsen
Serving The "Apparently Under The Influence" Patron: The Ramifications Of Barrett V. Lucky Seven Saloon, Inc., Kathryn M. Knudsen
Seattle University Law Review
In Barrett v. Lucky Seven Saloon, Inc., the Washington Supreme Court erroneously expanded commercial vendor liability to third parties who are injured in automobile accidents by a patron who drives while impaired. This decision flies in the face of Washington vendor liability jurisprudence, which has shown a reluctance to hold vendors liable for negligently serving alcohol; prior to Barrett, courts would not do so unless the patron was a minor or was "obviously intoxicated." Nevertheless, Barrett rejected the common law "obviously intoxicated" rule in exchange for a new form of civil liability based on a criminal statute that …