Law Commons^™

A Right To No Meaningful Review: The Aftermath Of Shalala V. Illinois Council On Long Term Care, Inc., Ruqaiijah Ayanna Yearby

ExpressO

A RIGHT TO NO MEANINGFUL REVIEW: THE AFTERMATH OF SHALALA v. ILLINOIS COUNCIL ON LONG TERM CARE, INC. Ruqaiijah A. Yearby

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment has been perverted in the federal administrative system. Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), regularly deprive individuals of liberty and property with little to no review. In its regulation of the health care industry through the Medicare program, HHS often turns a blind eye to procedural Due Process protections, such as providing individuals an opportunity to challenge the deprivation of property at a hearing, …

Mind The Gap: Expansion Of Texas Governmental Immunity Between Takings And Tort., Jadd F. Masso

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Jennings v. City of Dallas, the city’s wastewater collection division was dispatched to unstop a clogged sewer main but instead caused sewage to spew into the Jennings’ home with dramatic force, causing extensive damage. The Jennings subsequently filed suit against the city, alleging its actions constituted an unconstitutional taking, damaging, or destruction of their property for public use without adequate compensation in violation of Article I, § 17 of the Texas Constitution. The issue presented from the case was whether an individual citizen should be liable for such losses when the damage—as an incident to governmental action—in effect benefits …

Kelo V. City Of New London, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District V. United States, And Washoe County V. United States: A Fifth Amendment Takings Primer., Christopher L. Harris, Daniel J. Lowenberg

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment is a remedy available to citizens for the government's undue interference with private property rights. It operates similarly to an affirmative defense as it entitles citizens to “just compensation” when the government “takes” private property for “public use.” The Takings Clause thus embodies the idea that society values the protection of private property. The Supreme Court of the United States stated the purpose of the Takings Clause is “to bar Government from forcing citizens from bearing public burdens which, in all fairness, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Kelo v. …

Securing One's Fourth Amendment Rights Through Issue Preclusion: Assessing Texas's Application Of Collateral Estoppel To Multiple Suppression Motions Filed In Separate Courts., Garrett T. Reece

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Comment will assess the split in Texas courts over the issue of collateral estoppel’s application in different motion to suppress hearings. By placing collateral estoppel within the confines of the Double Jeopardy Clause, federal law essentially extinguished one form of collateral estoppel and invented another form of the doctrine. Remnants of both forms are still alive, however, and Texas is one state in which both forms of collateral estoppel may be invoked in a criminal proceeding. Part II provides a historical analysis of the exclusionary rule, Double Jeopardy Clause, and collateral estoppel’s rise in criminal court. Part III addresses …