Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Bargaining With Bite: Missouri High Court's Constitutional Holdings Alter Public Sector Labor Law, Peter W. Bay
Bargaining With Bite: Missouri High Court's Constitutional Holdings Alter Public Sector Labor Law, Peter W. Bay
Missouri Law Review
Collective bargaining – negotiations over working conditions between an employer and representatives of their employees – appeared as early as 1891 as labor unions arose in response to the Industrial Revolution. Collective bargaining in private industry was recognized in 1935 by the National Labor Relations Act but was considered prohibited in the public sector. In 1945, the state of Missouri ratified its constitution, which included article 1, section 29, a provision protecting employee collective bargaining rights. That provision, however, was quickly interpreted by courts as applying only to private employees, and thus, public employees had little power to negotiate employment …
Miller V. Alabama: What It Is, What It May Be, And What It Is Not, Nancy Gertner
Miller V. Alabama: What It Is, What It May Be, And What It Is Not, Nancy Gertner
Missouri Law Review
In Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a five to four opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, held that mandatory life imprisonment without parole for defendants convicted of murder who were under age eighteen at the time of their crimes violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The decision raises a host of important questions that the University of Missouri School of Law’s recent symposium ably addressed. Is Miller a watershed opinion, prefiguring a new era of substantive Eighth Amendment jurisprudence that would apply to other imprisonment sentences across offender and offense categories? …
Eighth Amendment Differentness, William W. Berry Iii
Eighth Amendment Differentness, William W. Berry Iii
Missouri Law Review
Part II of the Article provides the context for the Miller case, outlining the theoretical underpinnings of the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. Part III describes the Court’s “different” jurisprudence, linking the concept of “juveniles are different” to the Court’s longstanding view that “death is different.” In Part IV, the Article demonstrates how the two possible interpretations of the Court’s statement in Miller that “juveniles are different” – as a character-based form of differentness and, in the case of juvenile LWOP, as a punishment-based form of differentness – create distinct theoretical bases for broadening the scope of the Eighth Amendment. Finally, …
Science, Politics, And Administrative Legitimacy , Louis J. Virelli Iii
Science, Politics, And Administrative Legitimacy , Louis J. Virelli Iii
Missouri Law Review
Administrative agencies in the United States and other constitutional democracies around the world are continually faced with difficult questions about the legitimacy of their decisions.1 Each of these legitimacy questions in turn raises important second-order questions about how agencies should view their role within a constitutional democracy: How closely should agency decisions reflect popular political will? When and to what degree are deviations from popular opinion justified, and what measures should be taken to reduce the gap between regulators and the governed? What other sources of information are critical to agency decision making, and how should those inputs be treated …
Constitutionality Of Caps: Upholding Missouri's Right To Jury Trial And The Non-Economic Damages Debate, The, Rachel Lawrence
Constitutionality Of Caps: Upholding Missouri's Right To Jury Trial And The Non-Economic Damages Debate, The, Rachel Lawrence
Missouri Law Review
This Note argues that the Watts decision appropriately invalidated the statutory limits on economic damages, finding non-economic caps on damages unconstitutional. Part II of this Note analyzes the facts and holding of Watts. Part III examines previous constitutional challenges to Missouri Revised Statutes chapter 538 and how the court interpreted constitutional language to reach its decision. Next, Part IV explains the court’s rationale in Watts. Last, Part V explains why the court was correct in declaring noneconomic damage caps unconstitutional and explores the policy issues behind statutory limitations on damages.
Drawing On The Constitution: An Empirical Inquiry Into The Constitutionality Of Warrantless And Nonconsensual Dwi Blood Draws , Kevin Stockmann
Drawing On The Constitution: An Empirical Inquiry Into The Constitutionality Of Warrantless And Nonconsensual Dwi Blood Draws , Kevin Stockmann
Missouri Law Review
This Note assesses how courts have interpreted the text of Schmerber to justify conclusions while determining whether policy justifications support any particular interpretation. It then considers whether empirical data may favor one interpretation of Schmerber by examining the dissipation rate of alcohol from an individual’s bloodstream, the average time it takes a law enforcement officer to obtain a warrant for a blood draw on an alleged intoxicated driver, and the reliability of retrograde extrapolation. This Note confirms that neither the text of Schmerber nor the policy underlying its holding clearly favors a particular interpretation on the constitutionality of warrantless and …