Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Beacon Theatres Inc. v. Westover (1)
- Bernstein v. Universal Pictures (1)
- Blake v. State (1)
- Clark v. Commonwealth (1)
- Dairy Queen Inc. v. Wood (1)
-
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Food Employees Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza (1)
- Furman v. Georgia (1)
- Godfrey v. Georgia (1)
- Gregg v. Georgia (1)
- Gyles v. Wilcox Barrow & Nutt (1)
- Harris v. State (1)
- Hudgens v. NLRB (1)
- ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp. v. IBM Corp (1)
- In re Boise Cascade Securities Litigation (1)
- In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation (1)
- In re United States Financial Securities Litigation (1)
- Justus v. Commonwealth (1)
- Lloyd Corp.v. Tanner (1)
- Marsh v. Alabama (1)
- Mathews v. Eldridge (1)
- NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox (1)
- Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1)
- Radial Lip Machine Inc. v. International Carbide Corp. (1)
- Roberts v. Louisiana (1)
- Ross v. Bernhard (1)
- Towneley v. Clench (1)
- Woodson v. North Carolina (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Transforming The Privately Owned Shopping Center Into A Public Forum: Pruneyard Shopping Center V. Robins, James M. Mccauley
Transforming The Privately Owned Shopping Center Into A Public Forum: Pruneyard Shopping Center V. Robins, James M. Mccauley
University of Richmond Law Review
A recent Supreme Court decision has affirmed a state's choice to provide its citizens access to privately owned shopping centers for the purpose of exercising free speech and petition rights. The United States Supreme Court in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins held that state consitutional provisions permitting individuals to exercise free speech and petition rights on private shopping center property do not violate the shopping center owner's property rights under the fifth and fourteenth amendments or his free speech rights under the first and fourteenth amendments. There exists a delicate balance between the competing in- terests of the shopping center …
Non-Jury Trial Of Civil Litigation: Justifying A Complexity Exception To The Seventh Amendment, Barrett E. Pope
Non-Jury Trial Of Civil Litigation: Justifying A Complexity Exception To The Seventh Amendment, Barrett E. Pope
University of Richmond Law Review
The seventh amendment to the United States Constitution states that "[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved."' When Congress enacted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the right to jury trial at common law remained undisturbed.
Godfrey V. Georgia: Possible Effects On Virginia's Death Penalty Law, S. Vernon Priddy Iii
Godfrey V. Georgia: Possible Effects On Virginia's Death Penalty Law, S. Vernon Priddy Iii
University of Richmond Law Review
Virginia permits imposition of the death penalty for capital murder only after a bifurcated trial in which the jury has found the defendant guilty of the crime and, in a separate proceeding, determined death to be the appropriate penalty. In the second half of this process, the jury must find at least one of the two aggravating circumstances set out by statute' before a death sentence is imposed.