Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- 1990 (1)
- Adjudicative retroactivity (1)
- Bankruptcy reform act of 1978; debtor; congress (1)
- Chenery II (1)
- Chevron (1)
-
- Constitutional Criminal Procedure (1)
- Convergence (1)
- Criminal procedure; sixth amendment; right to a speedy trial; fugitive; supreme court; United States v. Diacolios (1)
- Data protection (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Inc. v Natural Resources Defense Council (1)
- Justice Marshall (1)
- Legislative prospectivity (1)
- Privacy (1)
- Rules of evidence; trials; witness preparation (1)
- SEC v. Chenery Corp. (1)
- SEC; securities exchange act; insider trading; Supreme Court; Congress; section 20 (d) (1)
- Search and seizure (1)
- Second Restatement of Contract section 90; promissory; reliance (1)
- Sixth Amendment (1)
- State remedy (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- U.S.A. (1)
- UNCITRAL; maritime transport; Hamburg Rules; risk allocation (1)
- Walder v. United States (1)
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Whole Truth?: How Rules Of Evidence Make Lawyers Deceitful, Bruce A. Green
The Whole Truth?: How Rules Of Evidence Make Lawyers Deceitful, Bruce A. Green
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Adjudicative Retroactivity In Administrative Law , Abner S. Greene
Adjudicative Retroactivity In Administrative Law , Abner S. Greene
Faculty Scholarship
Although decided forty-five years ago, SEC v Cbenery Corp. ("Cbenery II") remains the Supreme Court's leading statement on the issue of retroactivity in administrative adjudication. According to Chenery II, administrative agencies may give meaning to statutory terms through adjudication, even if the rules applied in a particular adjudication have not been previously announced. The Court acknowledged that "announcing and applying a new standard of conduct" in an adjudicative proceeding would have a retroactive effect, but concluded that the agency's duty to be faithful to the "statutory design or to legal and equitable principles" may override concerns about retroactivity. The Court …
The Promissory Basis Of Section 90, Edward Yorio, Steve Thel
The Promissory Basis Of Section 90, Edward Yorio, Steve Thel
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Hare And Hounds: The Fugitive Defendant's Constitutional Right To Be Pursued, Bruce A. Green
Hare And Hounds: The Fugitive Defendant's Constitutional Right To Be Pursued, Bruce A. Green
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Why Creditors File So Few Involuntary Petitions And Why The Number Is Not Too Small, Susan Block-Lieb
Why Creditors File So Few Involuntary Petitions And Why The Number Is Not Too Small, Susan Block-Lieb
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Uncitral And The Hamburg Rules -- The Risk Allocation Problem In Maritime Transport Of Goods, Joseph Sweeney
Uncitral And The Hamburg Rules -- The Risk Allocation Problem In Maritime Transport Of Goods, Joseph Sweeney
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Section 20(D) Of The Securities Exchange Act: Congress, The Supreme Court, The Sec And The Process Of Defining Insider Trading, Steve Thel
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Privacy Obstacle Course: Hurding Barriers To Transnational Financial Services, Joel R. Reidenberg
The Privacy Obstacle Course: Hurding Barriers To Transnational Financial Services, Joel R. Reidenberg
Faculty Scholarship
This article addresses the challenge to transnational financial services resulting from national regulation of information processing. National laws around the world seek to define fair information practices for the private sector and contain prohibitions on data transfers to foreign destinations that lack sufficient privacy protection. The effect of these laws for the financial services industry is significant because financial services depend on personal information. The article argues that the international attempts to harmonize information practice standards and the national efforts to regulate information processing encourage divergence of national standards for financial services. It argues that regulatory flexibility and customization is …
Impeachment Exception To The Exclusionary Rules: Policies, Principles, And Politics, The , James L. Kainen
Impeachment Exception To The Exclusionary Rules: Policies, Principles, And Politics, The , James L. Kainen
Faculty Scholarship
The exclusionary evidence rules derived from the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments continue to play an important role in constitutional criminal procedure, despite the intense controversy that surrounds them. The primary justification for these rules has shifted from an "imperative of judicial integrity" to the "deterrence of police conduct that violates... [constitutional] rights." Regardless of the justification it uses for the rules' existence, the Supreme Court continues to limit their breadth "at the margin," when "the acknowledged costs to other values vital to a rational system of criminal justice" outweigh the deterrent effects of exclusion. The most notable limitation on …
Wanted: A Federal Standard For Evaluationg The Adequate State Forum , Maria Marcus
Wanted: A Federal Standard For Evaluationg The Adequate State Forum , Maria Marcus
Faculty Scholarship
This Article argues that the federal judiciary should upgrade its present scrutiny of state forum adequacy in conformity with constitutional and congressional directives. Fortunately, a standard for such heightened scrutiny already exists in the Supreme Court's own jurisprudence.
Power Not Reason: Justice Marshall's Valedictory And The Fourth Amendment In The Supreme Court's 1990 Term , Bruce A. Green
Power Not Reason: Justice Marshall's Valedictory And The Fourth Amendment In The Supreme Court's 1990 Term , Bruce A. Green
Faculty Scholarship
In its 1990 Term, the United States Supreme Court heard five cases involving the Fourth Amendment. In this article, Professor Bruce Green analyzes these five search-and-seizure decisions in light of Justice Marshall's criticism that '[Plower, not reason, is the new currency of this Court's decision-making." He examines the various considerations the Court advances in its Fourth Amendment analysis-interpretive principle, policy, and precedent--and discovers inconsistencies in the importance assigned to each of these considerations in a series of cases decided very close together by virtually the same Justices. Each approach controlled, Professor Green argues, only when it could be said to …