Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Michigan Law Review

Causes of action

Supreme Court of the United States

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

Government Corruption And The Right Of Access To Courts, Una A. Kim Dec 2004

Government Corruption And The Right Of Access To Courts, Una A. Kim

Michigan Law Review

This Note addresses the question left unanswered in Harbury: whether these denial of access-to-courts cases, which Justice Souter termed "backward-looking" access claims, are valid exercises of a constitutional right. Backward-looking access claims such as Harbury's differ from traditional denial of access-to-courts claims in that their aim is not to remove impediments to bringing causes of action in the future. Rather, backward-looking access claims allege that a suit that could have been filed in the past was not brought or was not litigated effectively, because access to the courts was at that time denied or obstructed by government officials. …


Does History Defeat Standing Doctrine?, Ann Woolhandler, Caleb Nelson Feb 2004

Does History Defeat Standing Doctrine?, Ann Woolhandler, Caleb Nelson

Michigan Law Review

According to the Supreme Court, the Federal Constitution limits not only the types of matters that federal courts can adjudicate, but also the parties who can bring those matters before them. In particular, the Court has held that private citizens who have suffered no concrete private injury lack standing to ask federal courts to redress diffuse harms to the public at large. When such harms are justiciable at all, the proper party plaintiff is the public itself, represented by an authorized officer of the government. Although the Court claims historical support for these ideas, academic critics insist that the law …


Section 1983 And Implied Rights Of Action: Rights, Remedies, And Realism, Michael A. Mazzuchi Mar 1992

Section 1983 And Implied Rights Of Action: Rights, Remedies, And Realism, Michael A. Mazzuchi

Michigan Law Review

This Note criticizes the Court's current reconciliation of the implied right of action and section 1983 inquiries, and argues that the availability of lawsuits under section 1983 should be the same as under an implied right of action test. Part I, by offering a working definition of rights, suggests an approach to identifying statutorily created rights. Part II discusses the evolution of the Court's implied right of action ' jurisprudence, and explores several explanations for the Court's hesitancy to create implied rights of action. Part III examines the influence of the Court's implied right of action test on its jurisprudence …


The Class-Based Animus Requirement Of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3): A Limiting Strategy Gone Awry?, Devin S. Schindler Oct 1985

The Class-Based Animus Requirement Of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3): A Limiting Strategy Gone Awry?, Devin S. Schindler

Michigan Law Review

This Note focuses on Scott's impact on attempts to determine what groups fall within the statute. Part I examines the various class-based animus formulas generated by the circuits since Griffin and the potential impact of Scott on these formulas. Part II argues that the key to understanding the scope of the class-based animus requirement lies in traditional fourteenth amendment equal protection analysis.


Backing Off Bivens And The Ramifications Of This Retreat For The Vindication Of First Amendment Rights, Joan Steinman Nov 1984

Backing Off Bivens And The Ramifications Of This Retreat For The Vindication Of First Amendment Rights, Joan Steinman

Michigan Law Review

In Part I of this Article, Chappell and Bush are analyzed against the backdrop of the preceding Bivens cases. The analysis explains how these cases presented situations that were similar to one another but unlike any the Supreme Court previously had faced in Bivens cases. It demonstrates how the Court departed from the line of analysis that its previous Bivens cases had established, in a way that makes it more difficult for at least some plaintiffs seeking vindication of their constitutional rights to succeed in having a money damage remedy implied directly under the Constitution. The Article then argues that …