Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Spence V. Washington, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court's Jurisdiction--Reform Proposals, Discretionary Review, And Writ Dismissals, James F. Blumstein

Vanderbilt Law Review

With judicial reform a matter of intense public debate, it is essential that one understand the political consequences that may result from the adoption of various reform measures. Moreover, it is important to recognize that an evaluation of any proposed change must proceed from one's conception of the role of the Supreme Court in our society and one's perception of the foundations of its legitimacy. Similar considerations also must shape one's analysis of the rule of four and the Court's practice of dismissing certiorari as improvidently granted. While discretionary review increasingly has politicized a large portion of the Court's work, …

See The Marshall Exhibit At The Supreme Court Building, William F. Swindler

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Florida's Legislative Response To Furman: An Exercise In Futility?, Charles W. Ehrhardt, Harold Levinson

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

The Chief Justice As Leader: The Case Of Morrison Remick Waite, D. Grier Stephenson Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Immunity Under The Speech Or Debate Clause For Republican And From Questioning About Sources, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Gravel v. United States, which arose out of Senator Mike Gravel's attempt to publicize the Pentagon Papers, concerned the scope of the immunity conferred upon a legislator and his aide under article I, section 6, of the United States Constitution. This provision, commonly called the "speech or debate clause," provides that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [United States Senators or Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place." Gravel is one of the few Supreme Court interpretations of this clause.

Justice Thurgood Marshall: An Analysis Of His First Years On The Court, 1967-1971, Randall Walton Bland

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Uniqueness Of The Warren And Burger Courts In American Constitutional History, P. Allan Dionisopoulos

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court, Compulsory Education, And The First Amendment's Religion Clauses, Philip B. Kurland

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Modern Supreme Court, Joseph E. Fortenberry

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Book Review Of A Question Of Judgment: The Fortas Case And The Struggle For The Supreme Court, Richard A. Williamson

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Critical Guide To Ex Parte Mccardle, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Publications

Given the growing trend of proposed Congressional bills seeking to remove certain types of cases from the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, this examination looks back on Ex Parte McCardle, the quintessential case that defined the limits of the Exceptions Clause.

Gregory Hess, Appellant V. State Of Indiana, Appellee (On Appeal From The Supreme Court Of Indiana) In The Supreme Court Of The United States, Patrick Baude, F. Thomas Schornhorst

Historic Documents

Jurisdictional Statement

October Term, 1973

0005: Charles P. T. Moore Papers, 1861-1886, Marshall University Special Collections

Guides to Manuscript Collections

Judge of West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Papers are primarily legal documents or letters concerning legal matters. Includes an invoice of articles received from J. A. Kline for use in the General Hospital at Point Pleasant, West Virginia, by the Second Virginia Cavalry. ACCESSION 558; addendum to ACCESSION 5 contains items found in home and consists primarily of printed material related to farming; includes receipts, correspondence, and other holographic items.

The Future Of Capital Punishment In Florida: Analysis And Recommendations, Charles W. Ehrhardt, Phillip A. Hubbart, Harold Levinson, William Mckinley Smiley, Thomas A. Wills

Scholarly Publications

The Supreme Court's decision abolishing the death penalty, at least as it existed in most jurisdictions, hardly represents the final resolution of the controversy over capital punishment. Given substantial public sentiment which apparently favors capital punishment in some form-voiced, for example, in the results of the recent referendum in California-various legislative bodies will face the question of whether capital punishment can and should be legislatively reinstated. In December 1972 the State of Florida became the first jurisdiction to pass judgment on this question. The legislature enacted a bill allowing imposition of the death penalty in certain circumstances. The two articles …

The Reincarnation Of The Death Penalty: Is It Possible?, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Fifty years ago Clarence Darrow, probably the greatest criminal defense lawyer in American history and a leading opponent of capital punishment, observed: The question of capital punishment has been the subject of endless discussion and will probably never be settled so long as men believe in punishment. Some states have abolished and then reinstated it; some have enjoyed capital punishment for long periods of time and finally prohibited the use of it. The reasons why it cannot be settled are plain. There is first of all no agreement as to the objects of punishment. Next there is no way to …

Judicial Caution And The Supreme Court's Labor Decisions, October Term 1971, Theodore J. St. Antoine

Articles

Labor law, like most other law in the making, is intensely political at its margins. On certain central themes, such as the right to join a union and freedom of contract, judges and administrators of widely varying outlooks may be able to reach a consensus. But along the frontiers of the law, no such accord can be expected. Conscientious decision-makers will inevitably differ with one another, depending on their diverse social values. They may even differ with their own prior positions, depending on shifts in the political climate. Moreover, if the decision-makers happen to be justices of the United States, …

Jim Payne - The Man, Julian E. Savage

University of Richmond Law Review

Others will remember him as a teacher; as a colleague; as a scholar. I remember the man-a very human man-an exceptionally sensitive man. Some, who had contact with him only during the last year or two of his life, should know that illness and fatigue were then his' daily companions, forcing concessions of his time and brilliance, and making it impossible for him to give as fully of himself to his students as he had done for so many years past.

The Confrontation Clause And The Scope Of The Unavailability Requirement, Jerry J. Phillips

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The confrontation clause is that language of the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution which provides, "[I]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Despite the seemingly absolute language of the confrontation clause, which would suggest that no hearsay evidence may be admitted against an accused in a criminal proceeding, its guarantee has been subject to exception. For example, when either a witness to an event or his testimony is shown to be unavailable, others will be allowed to testify as to the information which the declarant-witness has related …

Congressional Discretion In Dealing With The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Stuart M. Lockman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

On November 20, 1972, the Supreme Court, pursuant to statutory authority, adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence. The new rules of evidence were not to take effect, however, until ninety days after they had been submitted to Congress. The rules were officially submitted on February 5, 1973, but even before that date they had become the subject of extensive legislative debate. While some attorneys praise the codification of evidence rules as a progressive step, others maintain that certain of these promulgations will have an objectionable impact on the federal judicial system or that the Supreme Court has exceeded its authority …

The Presidium Crisis - A Study Of Power Allocation In United States Government, Stephen D. Marcus

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Abolition Of Self-Help Repossession: The Poor Pay Even More, James J. White

Articles

In this paper I propose to identify possible ways in which a court could uphold the constitutionality of section 9-503 without an explicit rejection of Fuentes v. Shevin. It is my thesis that Fuentes v. Shevin is probably an undesirable outcome, and that the application of the same doctrine to self-help repossession is certainly undesirable and would constitute due process gone berserk. My arguments will not be novel; each has been suggested by the courts that have considered this matter, or by the briefs of the lawyers who have argued these cases. I cannot even claim to have collected the …

Judicial Caution And The Supreme Court's Labor Decisions, October Term 1971, Theodore J. St. Antoine

Book Chapters

Following is the text of an address by Theodore J. St. Antoine, Dean and Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School, to the annual meeting of the American Bar Association's Sect"ion of Labor Relations Law held in San Francisco, August 12-15, 1972. Full title of the address is "Judicial Caution and the Supreme Court's Labor Decisions, October Term 1971."

Book Review Of The Modern Supreme Court By Robert C. Mccloskey, Edward A. Purcell Jr.

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Contract Rights And The Successor Employer: The Impact Of Burns Security, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note will only briefly discuss the implications of Burns for NLRB proceedings. Instead, the focus will be on the impact of Burns on actions to compel arbitration under section 301. Is the rationale of Burns inconsistent with the rule established in Wiley for section 301 actions? If it does not undermine Wiley, does Burns indicate when employers will be deemed successors in future actions under section 301 to compel arbitration? Before examining these questions, however, it is necessary to consider the decisions of Wiley and Burns.