Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Criminal Law (19)
- Constitutional Law (18)
- Labor and Employment Law (13)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (10)
- Environmental Law (9)
-
- Intellectual Property Law (9)
- Evidence (4)
- Other Law (4)
- Immigration Law (3)
- Jurisprudence (3)
- Civil Law (2)
- Education Law (2)
- Judges (2)
- Commercial Law (1)
- Communications Law (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Courts (1)
- Entertainment, Arts, and Sports 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)
- Publication Type
Articles 91 - 100 of 100
Full-Text Articles in Law
Oregon Natural Resources Council V. Thomas; Another "Meritorious" Timber Lawsuit Fails: Do Substantive Riders Warrant An Exception To The Plain Language Rule?, Julie A. Coldicott
Oregon Natural Resources Council V. Thomas; Another "Meritorious" Timber Lawsuit Fails: Do Substantive Riders Warrant An Exception To The Plain Language Rule?, Julie A. Coldicott
Golden Gate University Law Review
This note provides a brief background to the Rescissions Act, outlines the Act's provisions and examines the Ninth Circuit Court's decisions interpreting these provisions prior to Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Thomas. Section III sets forth the facts and procedural history of ONRC II, the most recent meritorious lawsuit to fall victim to the provisions of the Rescissions Act. Section IV examines the Ninth Circuit Court's analysis and holding in ONRC II. Section V argues that although the Ninth Circuit's decision in ONRC II was correct under current standards, the result was fundamentally wrong. Section V also examines the rules …
Are Rule 26(C) Protective Orders Viable Against Grand Juries? The Ninth Circuit Rejects Balancing Test In Favor Of A Per Se Rule: United States V. Janet Greeson's A Place For Us (In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Served On Meserve), Dane L. Steffenson
Golden Gate University Law Review
This comment compares the Fourth, Eleventh, and Ninth Circuits' per se rule with the Second Circuit's balancing approach. It concludes that the courts adopting the per se rule made unwarranted findings by overstating the reach of protective orders by construing them as improper "de facto" grants of immunity. The courts also understated the retained power of a grand jury by declining to recognize that even when a protective order exists, a grand jury can still call witnesses, have a court compel testimony, or use leaked information for prosecution even though it is sealed.s Further, these courts could have applied a …
Destination Ventures, Ltd. V. F.C.C. And Moser V. F.C.C.: How Much Should The Telephone Consumer Protection Act Restrict Your Phone, Fax And Computer?, Michael D. Mcconathy
Destination Ventures, Ltd. V. F.C.C. And Moser V. F.C.C.: How Much Should The Telephone Consumer Protection Act Restrict Your Phone, Fax And Computer?, Michael D. Mcconathy
Golden Gate University Law Review
The Ninth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter "TCPA") in two February 1995 decisions: Destination Ventures, Ltd. v. F.C.C. and Moser v. F.C.C. Destination Ventures marked the first examination of the TCPA by any United States Court of Appeals. In that case, the Ninth Circuit held that the TCPA ban on unsolicited facsimile (hereinafter "fax") advertising was a constitutional regulation of commercial speech since the provision reasonably fit the government interest in preventing advertisement cost-shifting to the consumer. Five days later, in Moser, the same three-judge panel reversed a district court decision and upheld the …
After United States V. Vaneaton, Does Payton V. New York Prevent Police From Making Warrantless Routine Arrests Inside The Home?, Bryan Murray
Golden Gate University Law Review
In United States v. Vaneaton the Ninth Circuit held that police did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by making a warrantless arrest of a suspect who answered his door in response to their knock. The majority distinguished the case from the United States Supreme Court's holding in Payton v. New York, which ordinarily requires police to obtain a warrant before arresting a suspect inside his or her dwelling. Instead, the court found that the police did not need a warrant to arrest the suspect, even though he stood within the identifiable threshold of the doorway, …
Standing Committee On Discipline V. Yagman: The Ninth Circuit Provides Substantial First Amendment Protection For Attorney Criticism Of The Judiciary, Jeffrey A. White
Standing Committee On Discipline V. Yagman: The Ninth Circuit Provides Substantial First Amendment Protection For Attorney Criticism Of The Judiciary, Jeffrey A. White
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Standing Committee on Discipline of the United States District Court for the Central District of California v. Yagman, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an attorney who publicly criticized a federal judge did not commit sanctionable conduct. In determining whether the attorney, Stephen Yagman, had violated a local rule of professional conduct for lawyers, the court applied a "reasonable attorney" standard, rather than a subjective malice standard. The court held that Yagman's statements, in light of this higher standard, did not violate the rule's prohibition against impugning the integrity of the court. The Ninth Circuit also held …
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 …