Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Due Process of Law (2)
- United States. Supreme Court (2)
- Absolute sovereignty (1)
- African Americans (1)
- American Indians (1)
-
- BMW of North America (1)
- Congress (1)
- Constitutional violations (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Empirical studies (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Forum non conveniens (1)
- Inc. v. Gore 517 U.S. 559 (1996) (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Legal doctrine (1)
- Minorities (1)
- Personal Jurisdiction (1)
- Political participation (1)
- Preclearance (1)
- Punitive damages (1)
- Race and law (1)
- Racial discrimination (1)
- Remedial regimes (1)
- Sovereignty (1)
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Tempered sovereignty (1)
- Tribal sovereignty (1)
- United States Constitution. 10th Amendment (1)
- United States Constitution. 9th Amendment (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Due Process And Punitive Damages: The Error Of Federal Excessiveness Jurisprudence, A. Benjamin Spencer
Due Process And Punitive Damages: The Error Of Federal Excessiveness Jurisprudence, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
The Supreme Court, in a line of several cases over the past decade, has established a rigorous federal constitutional excessiveness review for punitive damages awards based on the Due Process Clause. As a matter of substantive due process, says the Court, punitive awards must be evaluated by three "guideposts" set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore: the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, the ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, and a comparison of the amount of punitive damages to any "civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct." Following up on this pronouncement …
Jurisdiction To Adjudicate: A Revised Analysis, A. Benjamin Spencer
Jurisdiction To Adjudicate: A Revised Analysis, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Personal jurisdiction doctrine as articulated by the Supreme Court is in disarray. As a constitutional doctrine whose contours remain imprecise, the law of personal jurisdiction has generated confusion, unpredictability, and extensive satellite litigation over what should be an uncomplicated preliminary issue. Many commentators have long lamented these defects, making suggestions for how the doctrine could be improved. Although many of these proposals have had much to offer, they generally have failed to articulate (or adequately justify or explain) a simple and sound approach to jurisdiction that the Supreme Court can embrace. This Article revises the law of personal jurisdiction by …
Documenting Discrimination In Voting: Judicial Findings Under Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act Since 1982, Ellen D. Katz, Margaret Aisenbrey, Anna Baldwin, Emma Cheuse, Anna Weisbrodt
Documenting Discrimination In Voting: Judicial Findings Under Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act Since 1982, Ellen D. Katz, Margaret Aisenbrey, Anna Baldwin, Emma Cheuse, Anna Weisbrodt
Other Publications
The Voting Rights Initiative ("VRI") at the University of Michigan Law School was created during the winter of 2005 to help inform [...] the debates that led to this latest congressional reauthorization and the legal challenge to it that is certain to follow. A cooperative research venture involving 100 students working under faculty direction set out to produce a detailed portrait of litigation brought since 1982 under Section 2. This Report evaluates the results of that survey. The comprehensive data set may be found in a searchable form at http://www.votingreport.org or http://www.sitemaker.umich.edu/votingrights. The aim of this report and the accompanying …
The Virtues And Vices Of Sovereignty, Sarah Krakoff
The Virtues And Vices Of Sovereignty, Sarah Krakoff
Publications
American Indian tribal sovereignty is viewed very differently in the United States Supreme Court than it is in American Indian tribal nations. The United States Supreme Court, the progenitor of the legal doctrine of tribal sovereignty, appears skeptical of the doctrine's continuing viability. The Court is therefore veering away from any strong notion of retained inherent tribal sovereignty. American Indian tribes, the sources and perpetuators of de facto tribal sovereignty, are more committed than ever to enacting their sovereignty on the ground, as well as promoting and protecting its legal status in the courts and in Congress. There is an …