Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Summary Of Seres V. Lerner, 120 Nev. Adv. Op. 95, Sally L. Galati
Summary Of Seres V. Lerner, 120 Nev. Adv. Op. 95, Sally L. Galati
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The sister of a manslaughter victim, on her mother’s behalf, brought an action against the felon, who wrote a book regarding the killing of the victim, seeking to recover the felon’s book proceeds under the Nevada “Son of Sam” law. The district court found the applicable Nevada statute to be unconstitutional and dismissed the plaintiff’s action. Plaintiff appealed.
Night Thoughts: Reflections On The Debate Concerning Same-Sex Marriage, John V. Orth
Night Thoughts: Reflections On The Debate Concerning Same-Sex Marriage, John V. Orth
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
The Enumerated Powers Of States, Robert G. Natelson
The Enumerated Powers Of States, Robert G. Natelson
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Shedding Rights, Shredding Rights: A Critical Examination Of Students' Privacy Rights And The "Special Needs" Doctrine After Earls, Meg Penrose
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Brief Response To Attorney Albright's Article, Peter Brandon Bayer
Brief Response To Attorney Albright's Article, Peter Brandon Bayer
Scholarly Works
This article is a brief response to another article arguing that the words “under God” do not render the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. Attorney D. Chris Allbright’s provocative plea that the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is insufficiently religious to offend contemporary Establishment Clause principles rests on three wobbly premises: (1) a limited perspective of some of the Framers, one which the Supreme Court rightly has eschewed; (2) Supreme Court dicta reflecting at best certain justices’ cursory suppositions about the religiosity of the words “under God;” and, (3) the wholly irrelevant, and possibly inaccurate argument that the …
Is Including "Under God" In The Pledge Of Allegiance Lawful?: An Impeccably Correct Ruling, Peter Brandon Bayer
Is Including "Under God" In The Pledge Of Allegiance Lawful?: An Impeccably Correct Ruling, Peter Brandon Bayer
Scholarly Works
On June 26, 2002, in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the 1954 Congressional amendment adding the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance violated the First Amendment’s proscription that, “Congress shall make not law respecting an establishment of religion.” Because the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause applies to the States via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Ninth Circuit likewise found unlawful a California school district’s policy encouraging public school students to utter the words “under God” as part of teacher-led …
Note, A Woman’S Life, A Woman’S Health: Equalizing Medicaid Abortion Funding In Simat Corp. V. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, Sara Gordon
Scholarly Works
This casenote discusses the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Container System. In a decision deviating from those of the United States Supreme Court, the Arizona Supreme Court declared the Arizona statute and accompanying Arizona Heath Care Cost Containment System provisions unconstitutional because they did not survive strict scrutiny analysis under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Arizona Constitution. Where the state of Arizona has undertaken to fund abortions for indigent women whose lives are directly threatened by pregnancy, it cannot refuse to pay for abortions for similarly indigent women whose health, …
Summary Of In The Matter Of T.R. V. Nevada Div. Of Child And Family Services, 119 Nev. Adv. Op. 67, Kathleen Hamers
Summary Of In The Matter Of T.R. V. Nevada Div. Of Child And Family Services, 119 Nev. Adv. Op. 67, Kathleen Hamers
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
T.R., a fourteen-year-old boy at the time of the incident, was charged with sodomy against a four-year-old boy, forcing the boy to orally copulate him, and orally copulating the boy. An evidentiary hearing was conducted by a district court hearing master who concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence T.R. sodomized the four-year-old boy, and that he forced the four-year-old boy to orally copulate him. The district court agreed with the hearing master, entered an order with the hearing master’s findings, and dismissed the remaining charge. T.R. moved for a rehearing based on inadmissible and unreliable hearsay statements, which …
Summary Of John V. Douglas County Sch. Dist., 125 Nev. Adv. Op. 55, Derrick Harris
Summary Of John V. Douglas County Sch. Dist., 125 Nev. Adv. Op. 55, Derrick Harris
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Appeal from a Ninth Judicial District Court order granting a special motion to dismiss under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute, in an employment matter.