Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Sovereign Immunity - An Argument Pro, Robert F. Howarth Jr.
Sovereign Immunity - An Argument Pro, Robert F. Howarth Jr.
Cleveland State Law Review
The Ohio Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity vis-a-vis the United States Constitution, fourteenth amendment, will hereinafter be considered. Before delving into the constitutional realities, however, the substance of this narrow discussion should be placed in perspective with the multifarious civil actions arising out of the Kent State tragedy, May 4, 1970.
Sovereign Immunity - An Argument Con, Steven A. Sindell
Sovereign Immunity - An Argument Con, Steven A. Sindell
Cleveland State Law Review
Under the concept of sovereign or governmental immunity, a state may not be sued in tort without its consent. This doctrine, though the subject of repeated judicial challenges, is adhered to in a significant number of jurisdictions. It is the contention of this article that the reason for the rule no longer exists and that it should, therefore, be abolished as a controlling legal principle. Moreover, it is submitted that sovereign immunity violates the due process and equal protection.
Healy V. James: Official Campus Recognition For Student Groups, Jeffrey L. Terbeek
Healy V. James: Official Campus Recognition For Student Groups, Jeffrey L. Terbeek
Cleveland State Law Review
On June 26, 1972, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in the case of Healy v. James, a decision which will have great effect in the administrative review by a college or university official of a petition by a student group for recognition as a fullfledged campus organization. The Court declared that such a petition carries with it the associational rights of the group as protected by the first amendment, which can not be subjected to the prior restraint of denial without a constitutionally valid cause; placed the burden of proving such cause on the …
Argersinger V. Hamlin - Right To Counsel Expanded To Include Offenses Which May Result In Imprisonment, Oliver Claypool Jr.
Argersinger V. Hamlin - Right To Counsel Expanded To Include Offenses Which May Result In Imprisonment, Oliver Claypool Jr.
Cleveland State Law Review
On June 12, 1972, The United States Supreme Court held in Argersinger v. Hamlin, ... that absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was represented by counsel at his trial. Although, all of the ramifications of this decision have not yet been felt, American Bar Association president, Robert W. Meserve has estimated that the decision will require the legal profession to provide representation in some additional two to four million cases per year for indigent defendants alone.