Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Contempt-Injunctions-Federal Civil Contempt Decree Orders Deputy Sheriff To Resign From Office-Lance V. Plummer, Michigan Law Review
Contempt-Injunctions-Federal Civil Contempt Decree Orders Deputy Sheriff To Resign From Office-Lance V. Plummer, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
During the summer of 1964, a federal district judge issued an injunction prohibiting various St. Augustine, Florida organizations and other persons with notice of the injunction from harassing or intimidating Negroes who were seeking motel or restaurant accommodations. Appellant Lance, an unpaid volunteer deputy sheriff, was not a member of any of the enjoined organizations, but he had actual notice of the order. Nonetheless, six days after the injunction was issued, he engaged in activities designed to intimidate a Negro citizen. In a subsequent civil contempt action arising from these activities, the federal district judge, asserting jurisdiction over him because …
Political Thickets And Crazy Quilts: Reapportionment And Equal Protection, Robert B. Mckay
Political Thickets And Crazy Quilts: Reapportionment And Equal Protection, Robert B. Mckay
Michigan Law Review
If asked to identify the two most important cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in the twentieth century, informed observers would be likely to name, in whichever order, Brown v. Board of Education and Baker v. Carr.
No-Strike Clauses In The Federal Courts, Frank H. Stewart
No-Strike Clauses In The Federal Courts, Frank H. Stewart
Michigan Law Review
One consideration will support several promises. A promisor may extract more than one promise in return for his single undertaking to do - or not to do. It depends upon his bargaining power. His single undertaking may be so valuable that several promises are necessary to induce him to act, or not to act. He is privileged to hold out for the best deal. The law does not examine his motives or reduce his demands. And from this arises the common- law principle that one consideration may support several promises.