Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law (28)
- Natural Resources Law (28)
- Environmental Law (5)
- Family Law (3)
- Civil Procedure (2)
-
- Criminal Procedure (2)
- Housing Law (2)
- Labor and Employment Law (2)
- President/Executive Department (2)
- Taxation-State and Local (2)
- Torts (2)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Communications Law (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Construction Law (1)
- Election Law (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Judges (1)
- Law and Gender (1)
- Law and Politics (1)
- Law and Psychology (1)
- Legal Education (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Other Law (1)
- Privacy Law (1)
- Property Law and Real Estate (1)
- State and Local Government Law (1)
- Taxation-Federal (1)
- Transportation Law (1)
- Keyword
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 65
Full-Text Articles in Law
Separate Reply Brief Of Quinault Tribe
Separate Reply Brief Of Quinault Tribe
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 74-2414, 74-2437 to 74-2440, 74-2567, 74-2602, 74-2705 (520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975))
No abstract provided.
Reply Brief Of Defendant-Intervenor, Washington Reef Net Owners Association
Reply Brief Of Defendant-Intervenor, Washington Reef Net Owners Association
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 74-2414, 74-2437 to 74-2440, 74-2567, 74-2602, 74-2705 (520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975))
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Intervenor-Appellee The Confederated Tribes Of The Warm Springs Reservation Of Oregon
Brief Of Intervenor-Appellee The Confederated Tribes Of The Warm Springs Reservation Of Oregon
Sohappy v. Smith, Nos. 74-2409, 74-2376, 74-2617 (529 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1976))
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Appellee State Of Oregon
Brief Of Appellee State Of Oregon
Sohappy v. Smith, Nos. 74-2409, 74-2376, 74-2617 (529 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1976))
No abstract provided.
Reply Brief Of Appellants Dept. Of Fisheries And The State Of Washington
Reply Brief Of Appellants Dept. Of Fisheries And The State Of Washington
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 74-2414, 74-2437 to 74-2440, 74-2567, 74-2602, 74-2705 (520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975))
No abstract provided.
Department Of Game And State Of Washington Reply To Appellees' Briefs
Department Of Game And State Of Washington Reply To Appellees' Briefs
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 74-2414, 74-2437 to 74-2440, 74-2567, 74-2602, 74-2705 (520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975))
No abstract provided.
Appellee's Answering Brief
Sohappy v. Smith, Nos. 74-2409, 74-2376, 74-2617 (529 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1976))
No abstract provided.
Reply Brief Of State Of Oregon
Reply Brief Of State Of Oregon
Sohappy v. Smith, Nos. 74-2409, 74-2376, 74-2617 (529 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1976))
No abstract provided.
Separate Brief Of Puyallup Tribe
Separate Brief Of Puyallup Tribe
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 74-2414, 74-2437 to 74-2440, 74-2567, 74-2602, 74-2705 (520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975))
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Tribal Appellees
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 74-2414, 74-2437 to 74-2440, 74-2567, 74-2602, 74-2705 (520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975))
No abstract provided.
Brief For The United States
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 74-2414, 74-2437 to 74-2440, 74-2567, 74-2602, 74-2705 (520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975))
No abstract provided.
Brief For The United States
Sohappy v. Smith, Nos. 74-2409, 74-2376, 74-2617 (529 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1976))
No abstract provided.
State Of Washington's Response To Plaintiff- Appellants' Brief In Cause Nos. 74-2438, 2705, 2606
State Of Washington's Response To Plaintiff- Appellants' Brief In Cause Nos. 74-2438, 2705, 2606
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 74-2414, 74-2437 to 74-2440, 74-2567, 74-2602, 74-2705 (520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975))
No abstract provided.
Answering Brief Of Intervenor-Appellant Northwest Steelheaders Council Of Trout Unlimited To Brief Of Appellant Indian Tribes
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 74-2414, 74-2437 to 74-2440, 74-2567, 74-2602, 74-2705 (520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975))
No abstract provided.
Appellants' Opening Brief
Sohappy v. Smith, Nos. 74-2409, 74-2376, 74-2617 (529 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1976))
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Appellee Yakima Indian Nation
Brief Of Appellee Yakima Indian Nation
Sohappy v. Smith, Nos. 74-2409, 74-2376, 74-2617 (529 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1976))
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Plaintiffs-Appellees Richard Sohappy
Brief Of Plaintiffs-Appellees Richard Sohappy
Sohappy v. Smith, Nos. 74-2409, 74-2376, 74-2617 (529 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1976))
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Intervenor-Appellee The Confederated Tribes Of The War Springs Reservation Of Oregon
Brief Of Intervenor-Appellee The Confederated Tribes Of The War Springs Reservation Of Oregon
Sohappy v. Smith, Nos. 74-2409, 74-2376, 74-2617 (529 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1976))
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Nez Perce Tribe Of Idaho
Brief Of Nez Perce Tribe Of Idaho
Sohappy v. Smith, Nos. 74-2409, 74-2376, 74-2617 (529 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1976))
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Amicus Curiae State Of Oregon
Brief Of Amicus Curiae State Of Oregon
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 74-2414, 74-2437 to 74-2440, 74-2567, 74-2602, 74-2705 (520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975))
No abstract provided.
Constitutional Law—Eminent Domain—Just Compensation For A Lessee's Renewal Expectation—Almota Farmers Elevator & Warehouse Co. V. United States, 409 U.S. 470 (1973), Mark W. Pennak
Washington Law Review
The district court accepted Almota's theory of valuation, but was reversed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court reinstated the district court's judgment. Held: Just compensation for a leasehold bearing improvements owned by the lessee is measured by what a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller for the leasehold, taking into account the possibility of renewal. Almota Farmers Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. United States, 409 U.S. 470 (1973).
Recall In Washington: A Time For Reform, Michael L. Cohen
Recall In Washington: A Time For Reform, Michael L. Cohen
Washington Law Review
The purpose of this article is threefold: (1) to trace the history of recall in Washington, including the enactment of our present recall statutes and their fundamental principles; (2) to examine the reasons behind the apparent judicial retreat from those principles; and (3) to propose amendments to the present recall statutes to implement the constitutional intent.
Privacy And The Press Since Time, Inc. V. Hill, Don R. Pember, Dwight L. Teeter, Jr.
Privacy And The Press Since Time, Inc. V. Hill, Don R. Pember, Dwight L. Teeter, Jr.
Washington Law Review
In this article, the authors do not propose to discuss the innumerable ways in which one's privacy is invaded or to survey the entire sweep of the law of privacy, but rather attempt to trace briefly its development, with particular emphasis on how the law has affected the mass media since the Supreme Court decided its first privacy case, Time, Inc. v. Hill, in 1967. In so doing, we hope to add somewhat to the understanding of this unsettled area of law.
Constitutional Law—Flag Misuse And The First Amendment—Spence V. Washington, 94 S. Ct. 2727 (1974), Michael W. Hoge
Constitutional Law—Flag Misuse And The First Amendment—Spence V. Washington, 94 S. Ct. 2727 (1974), Michael W. Hoge
Washington Law Review
Defendant Spence displayed an inverted American flag from his apartment window during the days following the Cambodian incursion and Kent State tragedy in 1970. Affixed to the flag was a peace symbol, formed with black tape. The Washington Supreme Court sustained a conviction for violation of Washington State's "improper use" statute. On appeal to the Supreme Court, reversed. Held: The statute, as applied to defendant's conduct, impermissibly infringed expression protected by the first amendment. Spence v. Washington, 94 S. Ct. 2727 (1974).
Constitutional Law—State May Not Require Filing Fee From Indigent Candidate As Prerequisite To Ballot Placement—Lubin V. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974), Mary Mcinnis Schuman
Constitutional Law—State May Not Require Filing Fee From Indigent Candidate As Prerequisite To Ballot Placement—Lubin V. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974), Mary Mcinnis Schuman
Washington Law Review
Petitioner Lubin desired to be placed on the ballot in the primary election for nomination to a position on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. He was denied the papers requisite to ballot placement, however, because he was unable to pay the filing fee, a mandatory precondition to ballot placement in California. Although California statutes permit write-in votes, they are not counted unless the write-in candidate pays the filing fee prior to the election. Seeking invalidation of the statutes, Petitioner filed suit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging that he was a serious candidate who did not …
Caveat Viator: The Duty To Wear Seat Belts Under Comparative Negligence Law, John A. Hoglund, A. Peter Parsons
Caveat Viator: The Duty To Wear Seat Belts Under Comparative Negligence Law, John A. Hoglund, A. Peter Parsons
Washington Law Review
The first portion of this article will attempt to show that neither judicial nor legislative reluctance, nor its underlying reasoning, is justifiable in light of the current state of law and society. Substantial evidence will be presented to demonstrate the need for our society to adopt the seat belt habit and for the law to recognize and respond to this societal need. Reactions of courts and legislative bodies to suggestions of mandated use are then explored as a preliminary to an analysis of the common law basis for adoption of the seat belt rule. A careful explanation will then be …
A Century Of Case Method: An Apologia, James M. Dente
A Century Of Case Method: An Apologia, James M. Dente
Washington Law Review
This article will review the case method and the alternatives from the viewpoint of a seasoned-practitioner-turned-law-teacher. I will examine some of the criticisms of the method and offer some observations not heretofore made in the debate. It is hoped that this may help law students better understand the wisdom behind the use of the much maligned case method, which is still used in one form or another by the vast majority of American law professors.
Disqualifying Federal District Judges Without Cause, Peter A. Galbraith
Disqualifying Federal District Judges Without Cause, Peter A. Galbraith
Washington Law Review
This Comment will examine the desirability of adopting a without cause disqualification procedure to allow either party to remove a federal district judge from a particular case. After a discussion of the need for disqualification mechanisms, existing procedures for removal, either from a particular case or from the bench entirely, are discussed. Proposals for change, especially the Bayh bills, are outlined and evaluated in light of the practical problems peculiar to the federal district courts. The Comment concludes that a procedure to disqualify federal district judges without cause, as contained in the Bayh bills, is sound and should be adopted. …
Civil Procedure—Environmental Class Actions: Economic Ramifications Of The Rule 23 Nonaggregation Doctrine—Zahn V. International Paper Co., 414 U.S 291 (1973), James C. Carmody
Civil Procedure—Environmental Class Actions: Economic Ramifications Of The Rule 23 Nonaggregation Doctrine—Zahn V. International Paper Co., 414 U.S 291 (1973), James C. Carmody
Washington Law Review
This note will examine the impact of Zahn v. International Paper Co. within the context of environmental litigation. It will briefly trace the history of the nonaggregation doctrine relied upon and reaffirmed by the Zahn majority, and describe the limitations imposed upon would-be federal plaintiffs by that doctrine. The note then will examine various alternative modes of adjudication, including the ancillary jurisdiction alternative suggested by dissenting Justice Brennan, which would have been preferable to the position adopted by the majority. Finally, and most importantly, the note will take a hard look at the deleterious economic effects of Zahn upon environmental …
Appellants' Opening Brief
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 74-2414, 74-2437 to 74-2440, 74-2567, 74-2602, 74-2705 (520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975))
No abstract provided.