Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Patents-Patent Grant By Private Law-Constitutionality Of Grant After Expiration Of Time Limit, Stanley P. Wagner Jr.
Patents-Patent Grant By Private Law-Constitutionality Of Grant After Expiration Of Time Limit, Stanley P. Wagner Jr.
Michigan Law Review
An army officer invented a radar system before World War II but was prevented from patenting it by his superior officers for security reasons. In 1945 his application for a patent was rejected because it was not filed within the time limit embodied in section 102(b) of the Patent Code.1 Congress, in 1950, enacted Private Law 10082 to waive the statutory time limit for the officer's patent application. The act provided that a patent should issue from the 1945 application if the invention .met all the other statutory requirements of the Patent Code. The act provided also that the patent …
Evidence-Confessions-Admissiblity Of A Subsequent Confession Under The Mcnabb-Mallory Doctrine, Ira J. Jaffe S.Ed.
Evidence-Confessions-Admissiblity Of A Subsequent Confession Under The Mcnabb-Mallory Doctrine, Ira J. Jaffe S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Defendant was indicted for first degree murder and convicted of manslaughter in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. Defendant had willingly directed the police to the victim's body and voluntarily signed a written confession during a period of thirty-four hours detention prior to arraignment. At the arraignment defendant was informed of his rights and indicated that he was aware of them; in addition, the preliminary hearing was postponed in order to provide him opportunity to obtain counsel. Twenty hours after his arraignment the defendant once again voluntarily confessed while giving a police officer instructions as to the …
Legislative Apportionment And Representative Government: The Meaning Of Baker V. Carr, Jo Desha Lucas
Legislative Apportionment And Representative Government: The Meaning Of Baker V. Carr, Jo Desha Lucas
Michigan Law Review
In three recent cases the Supreme Court has reopened the question of the extent to which federal courts will review the general fairness of state schemes of legislative apportionment. It is a question on which the Court has had nothing to say for over a decade, leaving the bar to patch together the current state of the law from the outcome of cases disposed of without opinion considered against a backdrop of language used in earlier decisions.