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

Law Commons

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

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Eminent Domain: Judicial And Legislative Responses To Kelo, Alan Weinstein Nov 2006

Eminent Domain: Judicial And Legislative Responses To Kelo, Alan Weinstein

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

It has been almost a year and a half since the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005), that the federal Constitution does not bar government from using eminent domain for economic development purposes. That ruling precipitated an unprecedented negative reaction in state legislatures. 1 Now, Ohio has delivered the first post-Kelo state supreme court decision to address the constitutionality of eminent domain. On July 26, in City of Norwood v. Horney, 2006 WL 2096001, a unanimous Ohio Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the majority in Kelo and emphatically stated that …


Mapp V. Ohio: The First Shot Fired In The Warren Court's Criminal Procedure 'Revolution', Yale Kamisar Jan 2006

Mapp V. Ohio: The First Shot Fired In The Warren Court's Criminal Procedure 'Revolution', Yale Kamisar

Book Chapters

Although Earl Warren ascended to the Supreme Court in 1953, when we speak of the Warren Court's "revolution" in American criminal procedure we really mean the movement that got underway half-way through the Chief Justice's sixteen-year reign. It was the 1961 case of Mapp v. Ohio, overruling Wolf v. Colorado and holding that the state courts had to exclude illegally seized evidence as a matter of federal constitutional law, that is generally regarded as having launched the so-called criminal procedure revolution.


Benumbed, Carl E. Schneider Jan 2004

Benumbed, Carl E. Schneider

Articles

I originally intended to write a column on tort liability and research ethics, and I still plan to do so. But this column is a cri de coeur as I finish another semester teaching law and bioethics. This year, I asked with growing frequency, urgency, and exasperation, "Must law's reverence for autonomy squeeze out the impulse to kindness? Where is the beneficence in bioethics?" These questions assail me every term. Why? Consider Steele v. Hamilton County Community Mental Health Board. Mr. Steele was involuntarily "hospitalized after his family reported that he was 'seeing things and trying to fight imaginary …


66/10/19 Mandate, Ohio Supreme Court, Supreme Court Of Ohio Oct 1966

66/10/19 Mandate, Ohio Supreme Court, Supreme Court Of Ohio

Ohio Supreme Court

Mandate to Common Pleas Court, Cuyahoga County, to proceed without delay to carry out its judgment in Ohio v Terry citing no substantial constitution question involved.