Law Commons^™

State Control Over The Reclamation Waterhole: Reality Or Mirage, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note assesses how much state law section 8 saves from preemption. Section I reviews the interplay of state and federal water law in the West. It begins with a brief description of appropriation, the system of water rights found in the Western states, outlines the Reclamation Act of 1902, and then traces the Supreme Court's evolving construction of the Act. It culminates in a discussion of California v. United States, the Court's latest gloss on section 8. Section II expands the analysis of the California decision, integrating it with traditional preemption doctrine. It shows that section 8 respects …

Book Review: The Brethern, By Bob Woodward And Scott Armstrong, Gene R. Nichol Jr.

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Government By Judiciary, Philip B. Kurland

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Shrinking Forum: The Supreme Court's Limitation Of Jurisdiction - An Argument For A Federal Forum In Multi-Party, Multi-State Litigation, Allen R. Kamp

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Roe V. Wade And The Lesson Of The Pre-Roe Case Law, Richard Gregory Morgan

Michigan Law Review

The politically unsettled and judicially confused law of abortion in 1971 and 1972, when the Court twice heard arguments and deliberated Roe, should have warned it not to decide the case. By doing so; the Court thrust itself into a political debate and stunted the development of a thoughtful lower-court case law. If the Court did perceive the warnings but continued toward a decision anyway, perhaps trusting that its own considerable wits would devise an answer the lower courts had not, the result suggests that the judicial system's axioms deserve more respect than they received. This Article, by showing …

The Future Of Confrontation, Peter K. Westen

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court seems to be setting the stage for a long-awaited examination of the confrontation clause. It has been ten years since the Court endeavored in Dutton v. Evans to reconcile the evidentiary rules of hearsay with the constitutional commands of confrontation. Dutton came at the tail end of a string of confrontation cases that the Court had resolved without apparent difficulty. Not surprisingly, the Court approached Dutton in the evident belief that it could resolve the constitutional problems of hearsay once and for all. Instead, after oral argument in 1969 and a rehearing in 1970, the Court found …

Rationalizing Administrative Searches, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

At the outset, this Note examines the major decisions concerning administrative searches. Specifically, it traces the development of a warrant requirement and of the corresponding lower standard of probable cause announced in the Camara and See decisions. Subsequent modifications of that seemingly absolute rule are then analyzed. To develop a framework for evaluating administrative search cases, Section II groups those principal Supreme Court cases, along with pertinent lower court opinions, into three tiers of fourth amendment protection: administrative searches that require a warrant based on a traditional criminal standard of probable cause; administrative searches that require a warrant based on …

The Attempt To Develop An Appropriate Standard Of Liability For The Defamation Of Public And Private People: The Supreme Court And The Federalization Of Libel Law, Howard A. Gutman

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justice Stevens: The First Three Terms, George C. Lamb, Iii, Charles L. Schlumberger, D. J. Simonetti, James D. Spratt Jr., Joel R. Tew, Douglas W. Ey, Jr. Special Projects Editor

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Special Project undertakes an examination of Justice Stevens' Supreme Court opinions in an effort to identify his philosophical orientations, to evaluate the consistency of his views, and to determine the extent to which he has developed workable analytical methods. To achieve these goals, Justice Stevens' opinions are examined in three contexts: first, the area of federal-state relations,including commerce clause and supremacy clause questions; second, the individual rights area, emphasizing criminal constitutional and first amendment issues, and problems of fifth and fourteenth amendment analysis; and third, questions concerning the proper role of the Supreme Court in the constitutional scheme. Even …

Untangling The Strands Of The Fourteenth Amendment, Ira C. Lupu

Michigan Law Review

This Article explores such trends in the context of several recent cases and in the broader context of established patterns of constitutional law. Section II shows how the different strains of fourteenth amendment activism over the past century have tangled the strands of the fourteenth amendment in a thick, almost impenetrable knot. Section ill studies the tangle's reflection in three cases raising fundamental rights problems - Maher v. Roe, Moore v. City of East Cleveland, and Zablocki v. Redhail. Finally, Section N offers what Sections II and III suggest is missing from fourteenth amendment case law- a theory, abstract …

The Supreme Court And The Not-So-Privileged Press, John D. Epps

University of Richmond Law Review

The first amendment mandates freedom of the press, but the extent of that freedom has been the issue in scores of Supreme Court opinions. Whether press freedom is above and beyond that provided the general public by the first amendment has been a fertile question for debate. The question is more than academic, however; its answer has determined, for example, that reporters must be jailed for refusing to comply with subpoenas and that newsrooms can be searched for evidence of criminal activities.

Consistency And Predictability: Supreme Court Antitrust Decisions During The 1978 Term, Jeff Miles

University of Richmond Law Review

An article which discusses the Supreme Court's antitrust decisions during a term is necessarily general in nature, because temporal and spatial constraints do not allow in-depth treatises on each issue raised in each case. Rather, the writing should explain each decision, analyze the Court's reasoning, and assess the holding's effect on future cases and antitrust enforcement in general. Perhaps, however, the most crucial requirement is that it explain judicial philosophies and trends that aid counsel in advising their clients.

The Due Process Mandate And The Constitutionality Of Admiralty Arrests And Attachments Pursuant To Supplemental Rules B And C, Jon L. Goodman

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

In the past decade, the area of procedural due process, including traditional doctrines of in rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction, has undergone a constitutional facelift. As a result, two of admiralty's most extraordinary features--maritime attachment and garnishment and actions in rem--have been questioned from a constitutional standpoint.

The United States Supreme Court inaugurated the new era with its decision in Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. In that case, the Court first began changing its procedural due process philosophy by broadening its conception of constitutionally protected forms of property. Having narrowly addressed itself to the question of what constitute constitutionally …

Recent Developments In Patent Office Practice - 1978, 13 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (1979), Gerald Rose, Stephen M. Martin

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Two Justices Harlan On Civil Rights And Liberties: A Study In Judicial Contrasts, Lewis I. Maddocks

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Reason Of Slavery: Understanding The Judicial Role In The Peculiar Institution, A. E. Keir Nash

Vanderbilt Law Review

The results most relevant to the concerns of this Article are of course the effects upon how we judge the judges-for almost always we are sufficiently Whiggish to attempt such a judgment, either explicitly or implicitly. At times the consequence of so summing can be to imagine that one catches the judicial conscience by asking questions phrased as Sentence D's query, whether the judges"collaborated" in a system of racial oppression. When we put the question this way, two unfortunate things happen. First, we create a verbal and historical muddle, for if anything ought to be clear by now it is …