Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Property law (2)
- Anticommon property (1)
- Boundary principle (1)
- Common property (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
-
- Freedom of speech (1)
- Harvard Law Review (1)
- Interest on Lawyer Trust Account (IOLTA) (1)
- Judicial review (1)
- Liable (1)
- Municipal liability (1)
- Municipalities (1)
- Numerus Clausus (1)
- Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation (1)
- Private law (1)
- Property theory (1)
- Reverter Act (1)
- SCOTUS (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Takings Clause (1)
- Yale Law Journal (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Municipal Responsibility For Constitutional Torts, Jack M. Beermann
Municipal Responsibility For Constitutional Torts, Jack M. Beermann
Faculty Scholarship
The fundamental principle in the law of municipal liability under § 1983 is that municipalities may be held liable only for their own conduct, not for the conduct of municipal employees. Stated somewhat differently, municipalities may not be held vicariously liable for the conduct of municipal employees but rather can be held liable only when municipal policy is the moving force behind the violation. While this principle is simple to state, it has proven difficult to apply.
Five Modern Notions In Search Of An Author: The Ideology Of The Intimate Society In Constitutional Speech Law, Marie Failinger
Five Modern Notions In Search Of An Author: The Ideology Of The Intimate Society In Constitutional Speech Law, Marie Failinger
Faculty Scholarship
In this article, drawing heavily on the work of sociologist Richard Sennett, the author argues that the Court’s jurisprudence lends credence to, and exacerbates, five damaging “common sense” notions about American public social life: that public space and time are naked or empty, and can be imagined as no more than transportation tunnels or even the binoculars of a voyeur, as illustrated by the public forum doctrine; that massed acts of public communication, or “speech crowds” are dangerous and must be controlled by force, as the public forum and “clear and present danger” doctrines suggest; that “shadow” space for deviant …
City Of Boerne V. Flores: Religious Free Exercise Pays A High Price For The Supreme Court's Retaliation On Congress, Elizabeth Trujillo
City Of Boerne V. Flores: Religious Free Exercise Pays A High Price For The Supreme Court's Retaliation On Congress, Elizabeth Trujillo
Faculty Scholarship
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects a person's right to the free exercise of religion. This protection, however, fails to provide a framework with which to reconcile the freedom of religious conduct with the need for government to regulate conduct. All three branches of government, as created in the Constitution, create and refine this framework. Traditionally, the judiciary has been the final interpreter of the Constitution and, in this capacity, has defined the powers of the other branches of government. For example, the Supreme Court has interpreted Congress's …
The Boundaries Of Private Property, Michael A. Heller
The Boundaries Of Private Property, Michael A. Heller
Faculty Scholarship
If your house and fields are worth more separately, divide them; if you want to leave a ring to your child now and grandchild later, split the ownership in a trust. The American law of property encourages owners to subdivide resources freely. Hidden within the law, however, is a boundary principle that limits the right to subdivide private property into wasteful fragments. While people often create wealth when they break up and recombine property in novel ways, owners may make mistakes, or their self-interest may clash with social welfare. Property law responds with diverse doctrines that prevent and abolish excessive …
Deterrence And Distribution In The Law Of Takings, Michael A. Heller, James E. Krier
Deterrence And Distribution In The Law Of Takings, Michael A. Heller, James E. Krier
Faculty Scholarship
Supreme Court decisions over the last three-quarters of a century have turned the words of the Takings Clause into a secret code that only a momentary majority of the Court is able to understand. The Justices faithfully moor their opinions to the particular terms of the Fifth Amendment, but only by stretching the text beyond recognition. A better approach is to consider the purposes of the Takings Clause, efficiency and justice, and go anew from there. Such a method reveals that in some cases there are good reasons to require payment by the government when it regulates property, but not …