Law Commons^™

Suspicious Person Ordinances - Due Process Standards; Columbus V. Thompson, Joel R. Campbell

Akron Law Review

In the absence of circumstances involving First Amendment rights, we are left without guidelines as to the conduct which may be made criminal by local suspicious person ordinances. Because of this lack of adequate standards, a case by case determination of criminal conduct under the various ordinances is necessary. In Thompson the defendant's conduct was questionable and the court found the ordinance unconstitutionally vague. We can only hope that this decision has a sufficient impact upon law enforcement officials and local courts to minimize the injury resulting from vagueness.

In Rem Jurisdiction; Due Process; Minimum Contacts; State Statutes; Shaffer V. Heitner, Richard S. Milligan

Akron Law Review

The decision of Shaffer v. Heitner marks a significant departure from established principles concerning in rem jurisdiction. No longer may a court take jurisdiction of a lawsuit merely by sequestering any property of the defendant that happens to be located in that state.

Implicated But Not Charged: Improving Due Process For Unindicted Co-Conspirators, Raeed N. Tayeh

Akron Law Review

This Comment posits that the practice of publicly naming unindicted co-conspirators before trial violates due process and that unless preventative measures are adopted to halt this practice, such due process violations will continue. This conclusion is buttressed by the text that follows, which surveys the relevant case law on the rights of unindicted co-conspirators, highlights the types of harm that a sample of unindicted co-conspirators have suffered as a result of being publicly named, and proposes procedures and rules that, if adopted, would conform with due process and help prevent these harms.

In this Comment, I will expand on the …

Personal Jurisdiction: A Doctrinal Labyrinth With No Exit, Simona Grossi

Akron Law Review

My goal is not to categorize, critique, or refine existing doctrine, but to challenge the idea that the Supreme Court’s case-by-case approach to personal jurisdiction represents an arc of progress. In my view, all too often the Court’s apparent refinements operate as detours from the fundamental principles at stake. The result is a clutter of doctrinal tests that is inconsistent with principle and confuses more than it informs. In Part II, I briefly explore the traditional bases of jurisdiction and the Court’s elaboration of the minimum contacts test in International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington. 9 Here, I show …