Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Criminal Law (19)
- Constitutional Law (16)
- Labor and Employment Law (13)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (10)
- Environmental Law (9)
-
- Intellectual Property Law (8)
- Evidence (4)
- Immigration Law (3)
- Jurisprudence (3)
- Other Law (3)
- Civil Law (2)
- Education Law (2)
- Judges (2)
- Commercial Law (1)
- Communications Law (1)
- Family Law (1)
- Health Law and Policy (1)
- Housing Law (1)
- International Law (1)
- International Trade Law (1)
- Juvenile Law (1)
- Legal Biography (1)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (1)
- Military, War, and Peace (1)
- Property Law and Real Estate (1)
- Securities Law (1)
- Social Welfare Law (1)
Articles 91 - 94 of 94
Full-Text Articles in Law
Crawford V. Gould: Federal Statute Gives Financial Boon To State Institutionalized Psychiatric Patients, Paul Webb
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Crawford v. Gould, the Ninth Circuit held that the State of California may not take Social Security benefits from a recipient without his or her consent. The court found that federal law preempted California's procedure of applying the Social Security benefits of unconsenting institutionalized patients to the cost of their care. With this decision, the Ninth Circuit ruled California's procedure invalid.
The Constitutionality Of Mandatory, Presentence Urine Testing Of Convicted Defendants, Joshua W. Rose
The Constitutionality Of Mandatory, Presentence Urine Testing Of Convicted Defendants, Joshua W. Rose
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Portillo v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona, the Ninth Circuit held that mandatory presentence urine testing of a convicted defendant violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court concluded that, because the particular facts of the case and the lack of information about the defendant's past drug usage did not support the district court's order, urine testing was constitutionally impermissible.
Mckenzie V. Day: Is Twenty Years On Death Row Cruel And Unusual Punishment?, Amber A. Bell
Mckenzie V. Day: Is Twenty Years On Death Row Cruel And Unusual Punishment?, Amber A. Bell
Golden Gate University Law Review
In 1976, the United States Supreme Court decided that capital punishment does not violate the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment. This note raises the question whether extended incarceration on death row invokes the protections of the Eighth Amendment. This note examines four aspects of this issue. First, it traces the facts and procedural history of McKenzie. Second, the history of cruel and unusual punishment jurisprudence is discussed. Third, it details and analyzes the majority and dissenting opinions. Finally, it demonstrates that McKenzie is a poorly reasoned opinion.
Renewed Compassion For The Dying In Compassion In Dying V. State Of Washington, Cara Elkin
Renewed Compassion For The Dying In Compassion In Dying V. State Of Washington, Cara Elkin
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Compassion In Dying v. State of Washington, three patients, five physicians, and a non-profit organization called Compassion in Dying challenged the constitutionality of a Washington State statute which bans all assisted suicide, including physician-assisted death requested by terminally ill, mentally competent adults. The district court held the statute unconstitutional for violating the patient-plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment liberty interests and equal protection rights." A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held that no constitutional right to die exists under either the Due Process or Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Ninth Circuit granted review …