Law Commons^™

Surprise Symphony: The Supreme Court’S Major Criminal Law Rulings Of The 2002 Term, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

First Amendment Decisions - 2002 Term, Joel Gora

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Kings County, People V. Nunez, Yale Pollack

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, New York County, People V. Garcia, Yale Pollack

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

2003-2004 Supreme Court Term: Another Losing Season For The First Amendment, Joel M. Gora

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Cases 2013–14 Term, Barbara Fick

Books

This is section 6 from a symposium called "Recent Developments in Employment Law" hosted by the Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, December 16, 2014.

December 14, 2014: The Tough Guys Who Favor Torture, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “The Tough Guys Who Favor Torture“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Qualified Immunity In The Fourth Amendment: A Practical Application Of 1983 As It Applies To Fourth Amendment Excessive Force Cases, Karen Blum

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Highly Political Supreme Court, Riley Lane Munks

Student Scholar Symposium Abstracts and Posters

This paper investigates whether Republicans or Democrats support a strong Supreme Court and why. Furthermore, by analyzing data from the 2012 American National Election Survey, I will study support of the court based on gender, age, and race. Since the early 1980’s the court has taken a strong conservative direction, to the dismay of many liberals. Republicans feel comfortable sending a congressional dispute to the courts while Democrats may feel disenfranchised with the judicial process. I also believe that younger people believe the court is an outdated method of making laws and interpreting the constitution. Originally the Supreme Court was …

Rico Section 1962(C) Enterprises And The Present Status Of The “Distinctness Requirement” In The Second, Third And Seventh Circuits, Lawrence A. Steckman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court's Analysis Of Issues Raised By Death Penalty Litigants In The Court's 2004 Term, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Discrimination Cases In The October 2004 Term, Eileen M. Kaufman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Look Back At The Rehnquist Era And An Overview Of The 2004 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Contribuição Da Doutrina Na Jurisdição Constitucional Portuguesa E Brasileira, Teresa M. G. Da Cunha Lopes

Teresa M. G. Da Cunha Lopes

O presente livro pretende fazer um estudo interformantes, com o fim de verificar se a jurisprudência das Cortes Constitucionais e Supremas resulta explicitamente permeável ao formante doutrinário. Por outro lado, o objeto principal da investigação são as citações diretas da doutrina que utilizam os juízes na motivação das decisões.

Rules Against Rulification, Michael Coenen

Journal Articles

The Supreme Court often confronts the choice between bright-line rules and open-ended standards — a point well understood by commentators and the Court itself. Far less understood is a related choice that arises once the Court has opted for a standard over a rule: May lower courts develop subsidiary rules to facilitate their own application of the Supreme Court’s standard, or must they always apply that standard in its pure, un-“rulified” form? In several recent cases, spanning a range of legal contexts, the Court has endorsed the latter option, fortifying its first-order standards with second-order “rules against rulification.” Rules against …

Should Musicians Be Jailed For Their Threatening Lyrics?, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

Looking Backward: Richard Epstein Ponders The “Progressive” Peril, Michael Allan Wolf

Michael A Wolf

In "How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution," Richard Epstein bemoans the growth of a dominant big government. How Progressives should receive a warm reception from the audience, lawyers and laypeople alike, who view the New Deal as a mistake of epic proportions. For the rest of us, significant gaps will still remain between, on the one hand, our understanding of the nation’s past and of the complex nature of constitutional lawmaking and, on the other, Epstein’s version of the nature of twentieth-century reform and Progressive jurisprudence.

Extradition Treaties - International Law - The United States Supreme Court Approves Extraterritorial Abduction Of Foreign Criminals - United States V. Alvarez-Machain, 112 S. Ct. 2188 (1992), Michael R. Wing

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Tompkins County, Seymour V. Holcomb, Jessica Goodwin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, Third Department, People V. Rivette, Michele Kligman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

District Court, Nassau County, People V. Yaghoubi, David Schoenhaar

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court’S Heightened Retaliation Standard In Nassar: A Prudent Limitation Or A Misguided Restriction To Title Vii Claims?, Darren Stakey

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The President’S Plan Respecting The Supreme Court, Ignatius M. Wilkinson

Fordham Law Review

To commemorate our founding in 1914, the Board of Editors has selected six influential pieces published by the Law Review over the past 100 years and will republish one piece in each issue.

The second piece selected by the Board is the testimony of Ignatius M. Wilkinson, the fourth and longest-serving dean of Fordham Law School (1923–1954), to the Judicial Committee of the U.S. Senate. Speaking to the Committee on the Judiciary, Wilkinson criticized the Franklin D. Roosevelt Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 because it would “undermine the independence of the courts” and “shake[] the foundations of our constitutional structure.” …

Comcast Corp. V. Behrend: Common Questions Versus Individual Answers—Which Will Predominate?, Daniel Jacobs

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Failing To Keep "Easy Cases Easy": Florida V. Jardines Refuses To Reconcile Inconsistencies In Fourth Amendment Privacy Law By Instead Focusing On Physical Trespass, George M. Dery Iii

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

This Article analyzes Florida v. Jardines, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a canine sniff of a home from the front porch was a Fourth Amendment search. In reaching this ruling, the Court employed the property-rights definition of a search newly recovered the prior term in United States v. Jones instead of applying the reasonable expectation of privacy test created in Katz v. United States. This work examines the concerns created by Jardines’s ruling. This Article asserts that Jardines refused to resolve a potentially troubling incongruity between Kyllo v. United States, precedent that exalted the privacy of the home, …

Foreword: The Confident Court, Jennifer Mason Mcaward

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 71a(H) Land Commissions: The First Fifteen Years, Julian Conrad Juergensmeyer

Julian C. Juergensmeyer

No abstract provided.

License To Discriminate: How A Washington Florist Is Making The Case For Applying Intermediary Scrutiny To Sexual Orientation, Kendra Lacour

Seattle University Law Review

Over the past few decades, the debate over sexual orientation has risen to the forefront of civil rights issues. Though the focus has generally been on the right to marriage, peripheral issues associated with the right to marriage—and with sexual orientation generally—have become more common in recent years. As the number of states permitting same-sex marriage—along with states prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation—increases, so too does the conflict between providers of public accommodations and those seeking their services. Never is this situation more problematic than when religious beliefs are cited as the basis for denying services to …

Supreme Court Religious Freedom Case Should Give Us Pride, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

Shelby County V. Holder - Brief Contextualized, Mark W. Wolfe

Student Publications

This paper begins with three major factors that set the stage for Shelby: first, a history of the VRA; second, an overview of Northwest Austin with a focus on how it led directly to Shelby; and finally, Shelby County’s motivations for bringing the suit. An examination of racial demographics compared to statistics on voter registration and minority officeholders in Alabama and Louisiana—two states originally subject to preclearance—follows in light of the Court’s claims on the matter. A conclusion will take a brief look at laws passed since Shelby with an eye towards a future critique. [excerpt]