Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional law (9)
- Constitution (7)
- Court (7)
- New york (7)
- State (7)
-
- Supreme court (7)
- Federal (6)
- Criminal law (5)
- Due process (5)
- New york state constitution (5)
- United states constitution (5)
- City (4)
- Civil procedure (4)
- Criminal procedure (4)
- Double jeopardy (4)
- Civil rights (3)
- Court of appeals (3)
- Discrimination (3)
- Fourteenth amendment (3)
- Mistrial (3)
- Prejudice (3)
- Appellate (2)
- Bad faith (2)
- Civil law (2)
- Clause (2)
- Consent (2)
- Due Process (2)
- Evidence (2)
- Murder (2)
- Queens (2)
Articles 1 - 19 of 19
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
How Much Do Expert Opinions Matter? An Empirical Investigation Of Selection Bias, Adversarial Bias, And Judicial Deference In Chinese Medical, Chunyan Ding
Brooklyn Journal of International Law
This article investigates the nature of the operation and the role of expert opinions in Chinese medical negligence litigation, drawing on content analysis of 3,619 medical negligence cases and an in-depth survey of judges with experience of adjudicating medical negligence cases. It offers three major findings: first, that both parties to medical negligence disputes show significant selection bias of medical opinions, as do courts when selecting court-appointed experts; second, expert opinions in medical negligence litigation demonstrate substantial adversarial bias; third, courts display very strong judicial deference to expert opinions in determining medical negligence liability. This article fills the methodological gap …
American Legion V. American Humanist Association, Seth T. Bonilla
American Legion V. American Humanist Association, Seth T. Bonilla
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The separation of church and state is a key element of American democracy, but its interpretation has been challenged as the country grows more diverse. In American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the Supreme Court adopted a new standard to analyze whether a religious symbol on public land maintained by public funding violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.
Death Be Not Strange. The Montreal Convention’S Mislabeling Of Human Remains As Cargo And Its Near Unbreakable Liability Limits, Christopher Ogolla
Death Be Not Strange. The Montreal Convention’S Mislabeling Of Human Remains As Cargo And Its Near Unbreakable Liability Limits, Christopher Ogolla
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
This article discusses Article 22 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (“The Montreal Convention”) and its impact on the transportation of human remains. The Convention limits carrier liability to a sum of 19 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) per kilogram in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay of part of the cargo or of any object contained therein. Transportation of human remains falls under Article 22 which forecloses any recovery for pain and suffering unaccompanied by physical injury. This Article finds fault with this liability limit. The Article notes that if …
The Future Of Dairy Cooperatives In The Modern Marketplace: Redeveloping The Capper-Volstead Act, Sarah K. Phillips
The Future Of Dairy Cooperatives In The Modern Marketplace: Redeveloping The Capper-Volstead Act, Sarah K. Phillips
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
Agriculture plays a fundamental role in the U.S. economy as a multibillion-dollar industry that feeds people all over the world. However, over the past decade, the dairy industry in particular has changed from a reliable sector of the greater agricultural industry into an unsettled, politically-charged, and fractured group. Dairy farmers’ consistently receiving low milk prices has facilitated this divide. Tired of being ignored and underpaid, dairy farmers are demanding change in the current dairy market structure.
Federal Milk Marketing Orders and a variety of statutes regulate the dairy industry, but the 1922 Capper-Volstead Act remains the most notable piece of …
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 Rockland County
Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department
Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division
Due Process Pringle V. Wolfe (Decided 28, 1996)
Due Process Pringle V. Wolfe (Decided 28, 1996)
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
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.
The United Nations Compensation Commission: Mass Reparations Apotheosis, Gregory Townsend
The United Nations Compensation Commission: Mass Reparations Apotheosis, Gregory Townsend
Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review
No abstract provided.
O’Neill, Oh O’Neill, Wherefore Art Thou O’Neill: Defining And Cementing The Requirements For Asserting Deliberative Process Privilege, Andrew Scott
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The government may invoke the deliberative process privilege to protect the communications of government officials involving policy-driven decision-making. The privilege protects communications made before policy makers act upon the policy decision to allow government officials to speak candidly when deciding a course of action without fear of their words being used against them.
This privilege is not absolute and courts recognize the legitimate countervailing interest the public has in transparency. The Supreme Court in United States v. Reynolds held that someone with control over the protected information should personally consider the privilege before asserting it but did not provide definitive …
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford
Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
Following its decision in Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court of the United States has attempted to standardize procedures that states use to subject offenders to the ultimate penalty. In practice, this attempt at standardization has divided capital sentencing into two distinct parts: the death eligibility decision and the death selection decision. The eligibility decision addresses whether the sentencer may impose the death penalty, while the selection decision determines who among that limited subset of eligible offenders is sentenced to death. In Ring v. Arizona, the Court held for the first time that the Sixth Amendment right to …