Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
In Re Parental Rights As To A.D.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Oct. 5, 2017), Alexis Wendl
In Re Parental Rights As To A.D.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Oct. 5, 2017), Alexis Wendl
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court held that (1) requiring a parent to admit guilt to a criminal act in order to maintain his or her parental rights violates that parent’s Fifth Amendment rights; and (2) substantial evidence must demonstrate that terminating parental rights is in the best interest of the children when a parent overcomes the presumptions in NRS 128.109(1)-(2).
Gordon V. Geiger, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Sept. 27, 2017), Rex Martinez
Gordon V. Geiger, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Sept. 27, 2017), Rex Martinez
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that, without notice, a permanent change to custody and visitation violates due process rights, and the affected party must be given the opportunity to respond and rebut the evidence. Further, when the district court conducts an alternative interview with a child, the interviews must be recorded and comply with the Uniform Child Witness Testimony by Alternative Methods Act.
Anselmo V. Bisbee, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (Jun. 29, 2017), Marco Luna
Anselmo V. Bisbee, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (Jun. 29, 2017), Marco Luna
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Parole Board can deny parole for any reason authorized by regulation or statute. However, inmates do have a statutory right to have a parole hearing under NRS 213.140(1). Therefore, in limited cases where the Nevada Parole Board clearly misapplied its own internal guidelines in assessing whether to grant parole to an inmate, a new parole hearing is warranted.
Using Outcomes To Reframe Guilty Plea Adjudication, Anne R. Traum
Using Outcomes To Reframe Guilty Plea Adjudication, Anne R. Traum
Scholarly Works
The Supreme Court’s 2012 decisions in Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye lay the groundwork for a new approach to judicial oversight of guilty pleas that considers outcomes. These cases confirm that courts possess robust authority to protect defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel and that plea outcomes are particularly relevant to identifying and remedying prejudicial ineffective assistance in plea-bargaining. The Court’s reliance on outcome-based prejudice analysis and suggestions for trial court-level reforms to prevent Sixth Amendment violations set the stage for trial courts to take a more active, substantive role in regulating guilty pleas. …
I Want My (Immigration) Lawyer! The Necessity Of Court-Appointed Immigration Counsel In Criminal Prosecutions After Padilla V. Kentucky, Scott R. Grubman
I Want My (Immigration) Lawyer! The Necessity Of Court-Appointed Immigration Counsel In Criminal Prosecutions After Padilla V. Kentucky, Scott R. Grubman
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
On Teaching Conflicts And Why I Dislike Allstate Insurance Co. V. Hague, Thomas O. Main
On Teaching Conflicts And Why I Dislike Allstate Insurance Co. V. Hague, Thomas O. Main
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Constitutionalizing Immigration Law On Its Own Path, Anne R. Traum
Constitutionalizing Immigration Law On Its Own Path, Anne R. Traum
Scholarly Works
Courts should insist on heightened procedural protections in immigration adjudication. They should do so under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause rather than by importing Sixth Amendment protections from the criminal context. Traditional judicial oversight and the Due Process Clause provide a better basis than the Sixth Amendment to interpose heightened procedural protections in immigration proceedings, especially those involving removal for a serious criminal conviction. The Supreme Court’s immigration jurisprudence in recent years lends support for this approach. The Court has guarded the availability of judicial review of immigration decisions. It has affirmed that courts are the arbiters of constitutional …
Impeach Brent Benjamin Now!? Giving Adequate Attention To Failings Of Judicial Impartiality, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Impeach Brent Benjamin Now!? Giving Adequate Attention To Failings Of Judicial Impartiality, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Scholarly Works
In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (2009), the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote vacated and remanded a decision of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in which Justice Brent Benjamin cast the deciding vote in favor of Massey, a company run by Don Blankenship, who had provided $3 million in support to Benjamin during his 2004 election campaign.
Despite the unsavory taste of the entire episode, the Court was excessively careful not to criticize Justice Benjamin. Overlooked because of this undue judicial civility and controversy about the constitutional aspects of the decision …
Exposing The Contradiction: An Originalist's Approach To Understanding Why Substantive Due Process Is A Constitutional Misinterpretation, Jason A. Crook
Exposing The Contradiction: An Originalist's Approach To Understanding Why Substantive Due Process Is A Constitutional Misinterpretation, Jason A. Crook
Nevada Law Journal
Few phrases in American jurisprudence have created more of a stir or inspired greater controversy than the seventeen words that comprise the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Drafted by the Reconstruction Congress in the aftermath of the Civil War, these words have been used to strike down maximum-hours legislation, permit the instruction of foreign languages in schools, and even establish the right of minors to purchase contraceptives. In light of its linguistic incongruity and the versatility of its judicial precedents, one could fairly state that the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause has been the subject …
Keeping Arbitrations From Becoming Kangaroo Courts, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Keeping Arbitrations From Becoming Kangaroo Courts, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Scholarly Works
Arbitration has grown rapidly during the past 20 years. Particularly notable and problematic is the rapid onset of new or mass arbitration that has resulted from the judiciary's modern favorable attitude toward enforcement of arbitration clauses, even those imposed upon consumers, employees, small vendors, and debtors as part of a standardized contract of adhesion. In a separate article (See "Mandating Minimum Quality in Mass Arbitration," 76 U. Cin. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2007)), I present a more comprehensive list of what I regard as the necessary steps that must be taken to insure minimally acceptable quality and fairness in mass arbitration. …