Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Law (359)
- Constitutional Law (44)
- Environmental Law (24)
- Immigration Law (21)
- Water Law (21)
-
- Labor and Employment Law (20)
- Criminal Law (19)
- Securities Law (19)
- Administrative Law (18)
- Family Law (18)
- Legal Education (16)
- Courts (14)
- Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law (13)
- Civil Procedure (11)
- International Law (11)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (9)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (9)
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation (8)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (8)
- Education Law (8)
- First Amendment (8)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (8)
- Property Law and Real Estate (8)
- Tax Law (8)
- Torts (7)
- Criminal Procedure (6)
- Animal Law (5)
- Land Use Law (5)
- Legal Profession (5)
- Commercial Law (4)
- Keyword
-
- Idaho (39)
- Election Law (15)
- Indigenous peoples (12)
- Resilience (12)
- Symposium (12)
-
- Fourth amendment (10)
- Conservation (9)
- Frisk (9)
- Ohio (9)
- Securities fraud (9)
- Stop (9)
- Terry (9)
- Climate change (8)
- Endangered Species Act (8)
- Public Lands (8)
- Capital punishment (7)
- City (7)
- Constitution (7)
- Death penalty (7)
- Environmental Law (7)
- Firearms (7)
- Adjudication (6)
- Civil forfeiture (6)
- Dale Goble (6)
- Endangered Species (6)
- Resilient (6)
- Wildlife Management (6)
- Gerrymandering (5)
- Indian water rights (5)
- Law school (5)
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 481 - 510 of 9228
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
State V. Wilson Appellant's Reply Brief Dckt. 47358
State V. Wilson Appellant's Reply Brief Dckt. 47358
Not Reported
No abstract provided.
Mcniel V. State Respondent's Brief Dckt. 47825
Gomez V. State Appellant's Reply Brief Dckt. 47923
State V. Cruse Respondent's Brief Dckt. 47801
State V. Jenquine Respondent's Brief Dckt. 47879
Swanson V. Swanson Appellant's Reply Brief Dckt. 48021
Swanson V. Swanson Appellant's Reply Brief Dckt. 48021
Not Reported
No abstract provided.
State V. Doser Appellant's Reply Brief Dckt. 48034
State V. Doser Appellant's Reply Brief Dckt. 48034
Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs, All
No abstract provided.
State V. Doser Appellant's Reply Brief Dckt. 48034
State V. Doser Appellant's Reply Brief Dckt. 48034
Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs, All
No abstract provided.
Byrd V. Idaho State Board Of Land Commissioners Respondent's Brief Dckt. 48042
Byrd V. Idaho State Board Of Land Commissioners Respondent's Brief Dckt. 48042
Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs, All
No abstract provided.
Byrd V. Idaho State Board Of Land Commissioners Respondent's Brief Dckt. 48042
Byrd V. Idaho State Board Of Land Commissioners Respondent's Brief Dckt. 48042
Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs, All
No abstract provided.
Valentine V. Valentine Appellant's Brief Dckt. 48254
Valentine V. Valentine Appellant's Brief Dckt. 48254
Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs, All
No abstract provided.
Valentine V. Valentine Appellant's Brief Dckt. 48254
Valentine V. Valentine Appellant's Brief Dckt. 48254
Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs, All
No abstract provided.
Idaho State Tax Commission V. James Appellant's Brief Dckt. 47835
Idaho State Tax Commission V. James Appellant's Brief Dckt. 47835
Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs, All
No abstract provided.
Idaho State Tax Commission V. James
Idaho State Tax Commission V. James
Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs, All
No abstract provided.
State V. Vivian Respondent's Brief Dckt. 47811
State V. Crockford Respondent's Brief Dckt. 48009
State V. Scott Appellant's Brief Dckt. 48116
Macklin V. State Appellant's Brief Dckt. 48165
State V. Schnakenburg Appellant's Reply Brief Dckt. 47489
State V. Schnakenburg Appellant's Reply Brief Dckt. 47489
Not Reported
No abstract provided.
State V. Dunn Respondent's Brief Dckt. 47677
State V. Gunter Respondent's Brief Dckt. 47890
Farms, Llc V. Isom Appellant's Reply Brief Dckt. 48012
Farms, Llc V. Isom Appellant's Reply Brief Dckt. 48012
Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs, All
No abstract provided.
Farms, Llc V. Isom Appellant's Reply Brief Dckt. 48012
Farms, Llc V. Isom Appellant's Reply Brief Dckt. 48012
Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs, All
No abstract provided.
Lujan V. Hillbroom Respondent's Brief Dckt. 48168
State V. Pittelko Respondent's Brief Dckt. 47751
State V. Wilson Appellant's Brief Dckt. 47827
Getting To Know You: An Expanded Approach To Capital Jury Selection, Samuel P. Newton
Getting To Know You: An Expanded Approach To Capital Jury Selection, Samuel P. Newton
Articles
The Colorado Method of capital jury selection is a widely embraced strategy defense attorneys use to select jurors during voir dire, in which attorneys rank each juror exclusively on the likelihood that the juror will vote for death. The method could benefit from some expansion. Not all defense lawyers have access to Colorado-Method-based training. In innocence cases, defense lawyers should soften discussions of punishment prior to guilt since this tactic predisposes juries to vote for death. Nor do jurors' views or positions on the death penalty guarantee their eventual votes. While capital juries are already inclined to give death sentences …
How The U.S. Constitution Connects With Covid-19, Richard Henry Seamon
How The U.S. Constitution Connects With Covid-19, Richard Henry Seamon
Articles
No abstract provided.
Tradition And Change At The University Of Idaho College Of Law, Richard Henry Seamon
Tradition And Change At The University Of Idaho College Of Law, Richard Henry Seamon
Articles
No abstract provided.
Two-Party Structural Countermandering, Benjamin Plener Cover
Two-Party Structural Countermandering, Benjamin Plener Cover
Articles
The popular narrative surrounding gerrymandering frames it as a performative phenomenon—achieved through the intentional manipulations of malevolent partisan actors. Efforts to curb partisan gerrymandering —which I call countermandering—have been performative, in turn, focusing on constraining these bad actors through judicial review or mapmaker neutrality. Yet performative countermandering has had limited success. Judicial and institutional constraints are only sometimes available and are often cumbersome and costly. More important, their utility is inherently limited, because gerrymandering is not only performative. It is also structural—an inevitable product of the American electoral schema itself. This paper makes the case for structural countermandering. It explains …