Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 19 of 19
Full-Text Articles in Law
Supreme Court, Broome County, In Re United Health Services Hospitals, Kristen Kelekian
Supreme Court, Broome County, In Re United Health Services Hospitals, Kristen Kelekian
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court, Kings County, People V. Nunez, Yale Pollack
Supreme Court, Kings County, People V. Nunez, Yale Pollack
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Year To Remember: The Supreme Court's Fourth, Fifth, And Sixth Amendment Jurisprudence For The 2003 Term, William E. Hellerstein
A Year To Remember: The Supreme Court's Fourth, Fifth, And Sixth Amendment Jurisprudence For The 2003 Term, William E. Hellerstein
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Takings Cases In The October 2004 Term, Leon D. Lazer
Takings Cases In The October 2004 Term, Leon D. Lazer
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Passive Takings: The State's Affirmative Duty To Protect Property, Christopher Serkin
Passive Takings: The State's Affirmative Duty To Protect Property, Christopher Serkin
Michigan Law Review
The purpose of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause is to protect property owners from the most significant costs of legal transitions. Paradigmatically, a regulatory taking involves a government action that interferes with expectations about the content of property rights. Legal change has therefore always been central to regulatory takings claims. This Article argues that it does not need to be and that governments can violate the Takings Clause by failing to act in the face of a changing world. This argument represents much more than a minor refinement of takings law because recognizing governmental liability for failing to act means …
Court Of Appeals Of New York, People V. Paulman, Michele Kligman
Court Of Appeals Of New York, People V. Paulman, Michele Kligman
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Court Of Appeals Of New York, In The Matter Of Nassau County Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated June 24, 2003 "Doe Law Firm" V. Spitzer, Christin Harris
Court Of Appeals Of New York, In The Matter Of Nassau County Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated June 24, 2003 "Doe Law Firm" V. Spitzer, Christin Harris
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
District Court, Nassau County, People V. Yaghoubi, David Schoenhaar
District Court, Nassau County, People V. Yaghoubi, David Schoenhaar
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Putting The Cat Back In The Bag: Involuntary Confessions And Self-Incrimination, Joseph A. Iemma
Putting The Cat Back In The Bag: Involuntary Confessions And Self-Incrimination, Joseph A. Iemma
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Self-Incrimination: Are Underlying Questions About A Pending Conviction On Appeal A Violation Of A Defendant's Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination?, Macdonald R. Drane Iv
Self-Incrimination: Are Underlying Questions About A Pending Conviction On Appeal A Violation Of A Defendant's Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination?, Macdonald R. Drane Iv
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Double Jeopardy: A Resentencing Game, Deirdre Cicciaro
Double Jeopardy: A Resentencing Game, Deirdre Cicciaro
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The (Un?)Constitutionality Of Compelling Non-Immunized Testimony In Deceptive Trade Practices Investigations Conducted By The Attorney General Of The State Of Arkansas, Terrence Cain
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.
Due Process Rights Before Eu Agencies: The Rights Of Defense, David E. Shipley
Due Process Rights Before Eu Agencies: The Rights Of Defense, David E. Shipley
Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law
No abstract provided.
Probing Into Salinas's Silence: Back To The "Accused Speaks" Model?, Rinat Kitai-Sangero, Yuval Merin
Probing Into Salinas's Silence: Back To The "Accused Speaks" Model?, Rinat Kitai-Sangero, Yuval Merin
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
The Categorical Lucas Rule And The Nuisance And Background Principles Exception, Carol Necole Brown
The Categorical Lucas Rule And The Nuisance And Background Principles Exception, Carol Necole Brown
Touro Law Review
This article examines the seminal 1992 United States Supreme Court decision, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, specifically focusing on the Lucas nuisance exception. The author surveyed approximately 1,600 reported regulatory takings cases decided since the Lucas decision involving Lucas takings challenges. The author further identified the statutory nuisance cases in which state and local governments unsuccessfully asserted the Lucas nuisance exception as a defense to the courts’ findings of a Lucas taking. This article examines the prospective potential of these cases for assisting private property owners in enhancing private property rights protections within the area of regulatory takings.
Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Buari, Matthew Moisan
Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Buari, Matthew Moisan
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court Of New York, Bronx County, People V. Womack, Barry M. Frankenstein
Supreme Court Of New York, Bronx County, People V. Womack, Barry M. Frankenstein
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Arkansas Game & Fish Commission V. U.S., Katelyn J. Hepburn
Arkansas Game & Fish Commission V. U.S., Katelyn J. Hepburn
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on remand from the Supreme Court, reconsidered whether temporary increased dam-releases resulting in downstream flooding, constituted a physical taking under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Applying the Supreme Court’s more complex balancing test, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ decision holding that temporary government-induced flooding can qualify as a Fifth Amendment taking. The court upheld an award of damages in excess of $5.7 million.
Special Administrative Measures And The War On Terror: When Do Extreme Pretrial Detention Measures Offend The Constitution?, Andrew Dalack
Special Administrative Measures And The War On Terror: When Do Extreme Pretrial Detention Measures Offend The Constitution?, Andrew Dalack
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
Our criminal justice system is founded upon a belief that one is innocent until proven guilty. This belief is what foists the burden of proving a person’s guilt upon the government and belies a statutory presumption in favor of allowing a defendant to remain free pending trial at the federal level. Though there are certainly circumstances in which a federal magistrate judge may—and sometimes must—remand a defendant to jail pending trial, it is well-settled that pretrial detention itself inherently prejudices the quality of a person’s defense. In some cases, a defendant’s pretrial conditions become so onerous that they become punitive …