Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Constitution (30)
- Federal (29)
- 1992) (28)
- Supreme Court (22)
- N.Y. Constitutional Article I (21)
-
- New York State (20)
- Defendant (19)
- United States Supreme Court (19)
- § 6 (17)
- Appellate Division (15)
- Court of Appeals (13)
- Violated (10)
- Constitutions (8)
- Evidence (8)
- State (8)
- U.S. Const. amend. IV (8)
- § 12 (8)
- Search & Seizure (7)
- Race and law (6)
- Testimony (6)
- Criminal (5)
- Jury (5)
- N.Y. Constitutional Article V (5)
- Second Department (5)
- U.S Const. Amend.VI (5)
- Constitutional interpretation (4)
- Due Process (4)
- Due process (4)
- Fourth Department (4)
- Jurors (4)
Articles 31 - 57 of 57
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Importance Of A Contextual Approach To Libel Law: The Impact Of Immuno Ag. V. Moor-Jankowski And Milkovich V. Lorain Journal Co., Margaret Chan
The Importance Of A Contextual Approach To Libel Law: The Impact Of Immuno Ag. V. Moor-Jankowski And Milkovich V. Lorain Journal Co., Margaret Chan
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Constitutional Posture Of Canine Sniffs, Lina Shahin
Constitutional Posture Of Canine Sniffs, Lina Shahin
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Judicial Deference To Administrative Agencies' Legal Interpretations After Lechmere, Inc. V. Nlrb, Susan K. Goplen
Judicial Deference To Administrative Agencies' Legal Interpretations After Lechmere, Inc. V. Nlrb, Susan K. Goplen
Washington Law Review
In Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, the Supreme Court held that when interpreting administrative statutes, the Court will defer to its own previous interpretations rather than defer to administrative agencies' interpretations of statutes. Thus, the Court determined that stare decisis is dominant over judicial deference to administrative agencies. The Court decided Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB wrongly. The rationales for deference to agencies exist whether or not the courts have addressed the statute in question. Therefore, courts should apply the doctrine of judicial deference even when courts have previously interpreted a statute.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter's Iconography Of Judging, Alfred S. Neely
Mr. Justice Frankfurter's Iconography Of Judging, Alfred S. Neely
Kentucky Law Journal
No abstract provided.
White V. Illinois: The Confrontation Clause And The Supreme Court's Preference For Out-Of-Court Statements, Nancy H. Baughan
White V. Illinois: The Confrontation Clause And The Supreme Court's Preference For Out-Of-Court Statements, Nancy H. Baughan
Vanderbilt Law Review
The Confrontation Clause, found in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides criminal defendants with the right to confront adverse witnesses.' A literal interpretation of the Confrontation Clause would preclude courts from allowing the admission of all hearsay testimony. The Court has rejected this interpretation, noting that it would render meaningless every exception to the rule against hearsay. Although unwilling to hold that the Confrontation Clause mandates exclusion of all hearsay, the Court has found that the Clause requires the exclusion of some hearsay statements. The Supreme Court has struggled to define the relationship between the exceptions to …