Law Commons^™

66/10/19 Mandate, Ohio Supreme Court, Supreme Court Of Ohio

Ohio Supreme Court

Mandate to Common Pleas Court, Cuyahoga County, to proceed without delay to carry out its judgment in Ohio v Terry citing no substantial constitution question involved.

66/09/21 Motion To Dismiss Appeal Filed As Of Right And Memorandum Opposing Jurisdiction, John T. Corrigan, Reuben M. Payne

Ohio Supreme Court

"The trial court properly found that there is a distinction between a frisk and a search, and that in the circumstances of this case the frisk preceded the arrest, and further, that the arrest and search in connection therewith were legal. The opinion of the Court of Appeals and the authorities cited therein support that conclusion. The defendant has not shown any valid reason why these findings should be disturbed. The motion for leave to appeal should therefore be overruled." From the Conclusion, page 14.

The First Amendment And The Suppression Of Warmongering Propaganda In The United States: Comments And Footnotes, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Publications

In an attempt to determine how the First Amendment may protect speakers’ rights to make inflammatory statements calling for violence against a sovereign, this article breaks down this larger question into three categories based on the speaker: the government, foreigners abroad, or American citizens.

66/06/14 Notice Of Appeal For Ohio V Chilton And Ohio V Terry, Louis Stokes

Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County

Louis Stokes gives notice of appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court from judgment rendered by 8th District Court of Appeals on May 25, 1966. Appeal is on questions of law and on condition that motion for leave to appeal be allowed by Supreme Court of Ohio; constitutional question is also involved.

66/05/25 Journal Entry From Appeals Court Affirming The Common Pleas Court Judgment In Ohio V Chilton And Ohio V Terry, Samuel H. Silbert

Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County

The Court of Appeals, Eight District, Cuyahoga County finds no error prejudicial to the appellant, thus affirming the Common Pleas Court judgement. Signed by Chief Justice Joseph H. Silbert, with Justices Joseph A. Artl and James Joseph Patrick Corrigan concurring.

The Reapportionment Cases: Cognitive Lag, The Malady And Its Cure, E. F. Roberts, Paul T. Shultz Iii

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The reapportionment cases have been considered by many to be the product of a liberal, activist Court which is endeavoring to reshape America’s political life according to its own views. The authors of this article assert that, to the contrary, the Court actually is reacting to the incontrovertible fact of the modern predominance of urban complexities which have rendered inappropriate our older political boundaries. In this sense, they consider the Court’s decisions conservative rather than liberal- because the Court’s purpose is to maintain a version of federalism along state boundaries which may have become outmoded even before the Court entered …

66/02/11 Opinion, Eighth Judicial District Of Ohio, Court Of Appeals, Cuyahoga County, Samuel H. Silbert

Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County

Judges Samuel H. Silbert, Joseph A. Artl, and James Joseph Patrick Corrigan unanimously upheld Judge Bernard Friedman's decision in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. The Appeals Court held that Detective Martin J. McFadden had validly found the gun carried by John Terry and had, at the moment of the arrest, adequate probable cause to arrest Terry.

The Conscientious Objector Exemption As An Establishment And An Accommodation Of Religion, Raymond B. Marcin

Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

The Right To Bear Arms: A Phenomenon Of Constitutional History, Ralph J. Rohner

Scholarly Articles

Most discussions of the right to bear arms-however superficial-begin by noting the specific language of the second amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

And in various similar provisions, the constitutions of thirty-five states guarantee expressly the right to bear arms. Though it is submitted below that there may be significant distinctions between the protection afforded by the federal and state constitutions, for our purposes here we are concerned primarily with the …

A Dissent From The Miranda Dissents: Some Comments On The 'New' Fifth Amendment And The Old 'Voluntariness' Test, Yale Kamisar

Articles

F the several conferences and workshops (and many lunch conversations) on police interrogation and confessions in which I have participated this past summer3 are any indication, Miranda v. Arizona' has evoked much anger and spread much sorrow among judges, lawyers and professors. In the months and years ahead, such reaction is likely to be translated into microscopic analyses and relentless, probing criticism of the majority opinion. During this period of agonizing appraisal and reappraisal, I think it important that various assumptions and assertions in the dissenting opinions do not escape attention.

Professor Kurland, The Supreme Court And Political Science, Donald P. Kommers

Journal Articles

IN A SYMPOSIUM held at the Notre Dame Law School on February 29, 1964, on several constitutional amendments designed to limit the power of the Supreme Court, Professor Philip B. Kurland of the University of Chicago Law School read a terse and delightfully witty paper in which he compared the Supreme Court to Caesar, sieged on the one side by the modem forces of Brutus, and championed on the other side by the contemporary Mark Antonys. There was no doubt in Professor Kurland's mind that the efforts of conspirators like the Council of State Governments, not to mention its less …

Note On Elfbrandt V. Russell And Loyalty Oaths, Jethro K. Lieberman

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

In the last thirty years, the equal protection clause has been largely transformed. Once a point of reference for courts striking down schemes of economic regulation which they regarded as unreasonable or unwise, it is now primarily a source of constitutional standards in the areas of civil rights, reapportionment, and rights of indigents accused of crime. These standards are of immense legal and social consequence. Since the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Educ. their development-characterized by Professor Philip B. Kurland as "the rise of egalitarianism" – has been paralleled by an increasing attention to the claims of equality …