Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Boston Five (1)
- Civil Rights (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
- Civil rights (1)
- Class action (1)
-
- Discrimination (1)
- Due process (1)
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores (1)
- Employment discrimination (1)
- Employment law (1)
- Hybrid class action (1)
- Inc. (1)
- Legal Ethics (1)
- Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts (1)
- Ramsey Clark (1)
- Rule 23 (1)
- STOKELY CARMICHAEL (1)
- Selective Service Act (1)
- Title VII (1)
- Vietnam War (1)
- Wal-Mart (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Tale Of Prosecutorial Indiscretion: Ramsey Clark And The Selective Non-Prosecution Of Stokely Carmichael, Lonnie T. Brown
A Tale Of Prosecutorial Indiscretion: Ramsey Clark And The Selective Non-Prosecution Of Stokely Carmichael, Lonnie T. Brown
Scholarly Works
During the height of the Vietnam War and one of the most volatile periods of the civil rights movement, then-Attorney General Ramsey Clark controversially resisted intense political pressure to prosecute Black Power originator and antiwar activist Stokely Carmichael. Taken in isolation, this decision may seem courageous and praiseworthy, but when considered against the backdrop of Clark’s contemporaneous prosecution of an all-white group of similarly situated anti-draft leaders (the so-called Boston Five), his exercise of prosecutorial discretion becomes suspect. Specifically, the Boston Five were prosecuted in 1968 for conspiracy to aid and abet draft evasion, a charge for which the evidence …
Introduction: Dukes V. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Elizabeth Chamblee Burch
Introduction: Dukes V. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Elizabeth Chamblee Burch
Scholarly Works
This short introduction to Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. aims to explain the case and to set the table for what promises to be thought-provoking roundtable discussion hosted by Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc. Accordingly, what follows is a concise overview of the legal background and current debate over the two procedural issues that the Ninth Circuit explored in detail – how to evaluate Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality when common questions heavily implicate the case’s merits, and when a Rule 23(b)(2) class can include relief apart from injunctive or declaratory relief without endangering due process.