Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (6)
- African Americans (1)
- Brandeis (Louis D.) (1)
- Brown v. Board of Education (1)
- Collateral estoppel (1)
-
- Confessions (1)
- Corporate tax (1)
- Corporations (1)
- Custodial interrogation (1)
- Exxon Corp. v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Frankfurter (Felix) (1)
- Griffin v. California (1)
- Guilt (1)
- History (1)
- Income tax (1)
- Interstate commerce (1)
- Judgments (1)
- Law reform (1)
- Miranda v. Arizona (1)
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes (1)
- Mootness (1)
- Multinational enterprises (1)
- Police (1)
- Public schools (1)
- Race and law (1)
- Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1)
- Rhode Island v. Innis (1)
- Segregation (1)
- Silence (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
State Income Taxation Of Multijurisdictional Corporations: Reflections On Mobil, Exxon, And H.R. 5076, Walter Hellerstein
State Income Taxation Of Multijurisdictional Corporations: Reflections On Mobil, Exxon, And H.R. 5076, Walter Hellerstein
Michigan Law Review
The purpose of this Article is twofold: first, to analyze the Mobil and Exxon decisions; second, to consider the congressional reaction they may engender. Because the terrain that this Article covers may be unfamiliar to some readers, a few further words of introduction may be appropriate.
Taken together, the Mobil and Exxon decisions dealt with the three methods of dividing a multijurisdictional corporation's income among the states - specific allocation, separate accounting and apportionment by formula. Each method provides a different solution to the problem of determining the portion of the income of multistate businesses that should be taxable by …
Interrogation Without Questions: Rhode Island V. Innis And United States V. Henry, Welsh S. White
Interrogation Without Questions: Rhode Island V. Innis And United States V. Henry, Welsh S. White
Michigan Law Review
In Rhode Island v. Innis, the Court defined "interrogation" within the meaning of Miranda; and in United States v. Henry, it defined "deliberate elicitation" within the meaning of Massiah. This article explores the implications of Innis and Henry, suggests readings of the new tests consistent with their purposes, and applies the tests to several situations where the scope of the fifth and sixth amendment protections remains unclear.
Preserving The Progressive Spirit In A Conservative Time: The Joint Reform Efforts Of Justice Brandeis And Professor Frankfurter, 1916-1933, David W. Levy, Bruce Allen Murphy
Preserving The Progressive Spirit In A Conservative Time: The Joint Reform Efforts Of Justice Brandeis And Professor Frankfurter, 1916-1933, David W. Levy, Bruce Allen Murphy
Michigan Law Review
On January 28, 1916, President Wilson sent the name of Louis D. Brandeis to the Senate for confirmation as a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Wilson's act surprised many Americans and sparked one of the bitterest confirmation struggles in the history of the Republic. The nomination and the confirmation that followed also created a painful and highly personal dilemma for the new Justice. This dilemma led Brandeis to a private arrangement that opened an unusual and revealing chapter in the story of the extra judicial activities of American justices. Even more important, the arrangement constitutes a noteworthy episode …
Collateral Estoppel And Supreme Court Disposition Of Moot Cases, Michigan Law Review
Collateral Estoppel And Supreme Court Disposition Of Moot Cases, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
In response to the Government's novel proposal in Velsicol, this Note reconsiders the procedures by which the Supreme Court could dispose of moot cases. Section I examines the collateral estoppel effects of the Supreme Court's present procedure and the Government's proposal in Velsicol. Section II concludes that both procedures afford excessive protection from collateral estoppel because they misconceive the purpose of Supreme Court review. The Note suggests that, when faced with a moot federal petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court should either deny the petition or, if certiorari has already been granted, dismiss the case.
The Fifth Amendment And The Inference Of Guilt From Silence: Griffin V. California After Fifteen Years, Donald B. Ayer
The Fifth Amendment And The Inference Of Guilt From Silence: Griffin V. California After Fifteen Years, Donald B. Ayer
Michigan Law Review
This Article will begin with an examination of the historic (and present) purposes underlying the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, upon which any justification of the no-comment rule must ultimately rest. It will explore the danger that these purposes may be thwarted not only when defendants are actually compelled to be witnesses against themselves, but also when significant burdens are placed on defendants who choose not to testify. In Griffin, the Court reasoned that comment on the defendant's silence amounted to such an impermissible burden. But the Court failed to examine the weight of this burden. This failure makes …
The Supreme Court: Myth And Reality, Michigan Law Review
The Supreme Court: Myth And Reality, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
A Book Notice about The Supreme Court: Myth and Reality by Arthur Selwyn
From Brown To Bakke: The Supreme Court And School Integration: 1954-1978, Michigan Law Review
From Brown To Bakke: The Supreme Court And School Integration: 1954-1978, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
A Book Notice about From Brown to Bakke: The Supreme Court and School Integration: 1954-1978 by J. Harvie Wilkinson III