Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Federal Rule 50: Medium Rare Application? Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. V. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., Leslie Eanes
Federal Rule 50: Medium Rare Application? Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. V. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., Leslie Eanes
Mercer Law Review
The year 2006 marked a historical year for the now seventy-year-old Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. In addition to an overhaul of the statutory language, which, absent contrary congressional action, became codified December 1, 2006, the Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion in Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. In what seems to be a straightforward procedural dictate from the High Court, Unitherm has actually resulted in confusion among federal circuits anxious to follow its precedent.
Involuntary Commitment Of People With Mental Retardation: Ensuring All Of Georgia's Citizens Receive Adequate Procedural Due Process, Laura W. Harper
Involuntary Commitment Of People With Mental Retardation: Ensuring All Of Georgia's Citizens Receive Adequate Procedural Due Process, Laura W. Harper
Mercer Law Review
In the state of Georgia there are approximately three thousand citizens who are confined to segregated living institutions because of their disabilities. Many of these individuals are placed in institutions involuntarily through legal proceedings. Some of these individuals have mental retardation, a condition that occurs during a person's development and results in below normal intellectual functioning. Many disability advocates argue that segregation and institutionalization of people with mental retardation is not needed, although all do not agree. Despite strong advocacy for the rights of people with disabilities, many continue to be institutionalized, often because their families can find no other …
Commission Control: The Court's Narrow Holding In Hamdan V. Rumsfeld Spurred Congressional Action But Left Many Questions Unanswered. So What Happens Now?, Thomas M. Gore
Mercer Law Review
By a 5-3 vote in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the United States Supreme Court held that the military commissions established by President George W. Bush to try al Qaeda members and other terrorists lacked the "power to proceed because [their] structure and procedures" violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice ("UCMJ") and the Geneva Conventions. In so holding, the Court exercised its power as a significant check on presidential power, but left many questions unanswered. In the wake of Hamdan, Congress enacted the Military Commissions Act of 2006 ("MCA"'). The answers to the questions not addressed by the Court …