Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Universitas Indonesia (584)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (279)
- University of Michigan Law School (267)
- Seattle University School of Law (253)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (156)
-
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (133)
- UIC School of Law (85)
- BLR (67)
- University of Maine School of Law (57)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (56)
- Pepperdine University (49)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (47)
- William & Mary Law School (41)
- University of Arkansas Little Rock (39)
- University at Buffalo School of Law (37)
- University of Colorado Law School (37)
- University of Richmond (33)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (31)
- University of Georgia School of Law (25)
- American University Washington College of Law (24)
- St. Mary's University (24)
- Georgia State University College of Law (23)
- Roger Williams University (23)
- Columbia Law School (22)
- Fordham Law School (22)
- University of Washington School of Law (22)
- Cornell University Law School (21)
- Georgetown University Law Center (21)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (21)
- Pace University (20)
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional Law (215)
- Sixth Amendment (184)
- Fifth Amendment (156)
- Fourth Amendment (151)
- Criminal procedure (136)
-
- Constitution (131)
- Supreme Court (128)
- Due process (122)
- United States Supreme Court (116)
- Criminal Law and Procedure (109)
- New York (107)
- Evidence (104)
- Constitutional law (101)
- Criminal Procedure (100)
- Federal (100)
- Police (97)
- Right to counsel (93)
- Fourth amendment (86)
- Criminal law (78)
- Confrontation Clause (77)
- Criminal Law (77)
- Testimony (74)
- Privacy (73)
- Defendant (71)
- State (67)
- Miranda v. Arizona (62)
- Due Process (61)
- Search (61)
- Self-incrimination (60)
- Death penalty (59)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan (444)
- Touro Law Review (258)
- Seattle University Law Review (214)
- Michigan Law Review (154)
- "Dharmasisya” Jurnal Program Magister Hukum FHUI (121)
-
- Articles (101)
- Faculty Scholarship (93)
- UIC Law Review (80)
- Cardozo Law Review (75)
- ExpressO (64)
- Maine Law Review (57)
- Villanova Law Review (1956 - ) (52)
- Pepperdine Law Review (48)
- Supreme Court Case Files (48)
- Washington and Lee Law Review (47)
- Publications (37)
- Faculty Articles (34)
- Buffalo Law Review (31)
- Scholarly Works (30)
- Faculty Publications (27)
- Seattle Journal for Social Justice (26)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review (24)
- Law Faculty Scholarship (23)
- University of Richmond Law Review (22)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (21)
- St. Mary's Law Journal (20)
- West Virginia Law Review (20)
- Chicago-Kent Law Review (19)
- Indonesia Law Review (19)
- Nebraska Journal on Advancing Justice (19)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 2881 - 2910 of 3077
Full-Text Articles in Constitutional Law
Constitutional Law—Due Process Requires That Limits Be Placed On Psychiatric Confinement Commensurate With The Procedural Safeguards Employed In Obtaining That Confinement., Christopher B. Ashton
Constitutional Law—Due Process Requires That Limits Be Placed On Psychiatric Confinement Commensurate With The Procedural Safeguards Employed In Obtaining That Confinement., Christopher B. Ashton
Buffalo Law Review
McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 407 U.S. 245 (1972).
Constitutional Law - Double Jeopardy - State Prosecution Barred After Federal Prosecution For Same Offense - Burden On State To Show Substantially Different Interests From Those Of Initial Prosecuting Jurisdiction, Ronald J. Examitas
Villanova Law Review (1956 - )
No abstract provided.
Prisoners' Redress For Deprivation Of A Constitutional Right: Federal Habeas Corpus And The Civil Rights Act., Daniel J. Sheehan Jr.
Prisoners' Redress For Deprivation Of A Constitutional Right: Federal Habeas Corpus And The Civil Rights Act., Daniel J. Sheehan Jr.
St. Mary's Law Journal
Franchises, founder-member contracts, and referral-sales agreements are marketing practices used to expand retail businesses and typically categorized as investment contracts. These marketing schemes continue to leave investors susceptible to fraud and misrepresentation because security regulations may fail to adapt to continuously varying methods in which promoters acquire capital. The Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Commission of 1934, and the Blue Sky Laws were attempts to regulate marketing schemes by establishing purposefully broad definitions of investment contracts. Securities laws were meant to have a liberal application for the purpose of being flexible and adaptive. In 1946, the landmark case …
1) A Consent To A Search And Seizure Can Be Shown When Words Constituting Consent Are Given After Officers Allege They Have Possession Of A Search Warrant; 2) The Right Of Confrontation Is Not Violated When An Out Of Court Confession Of A Third Person Is Introduced At Trial And Implicates The Accused., Michael L. Vaughn
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract Forthcoming.
Gagnon V. Scarpelli, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Gagnon V. Scarpelli, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Supreme Court Case Files
No abstract provided.
United States V. Orito, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
United States V. Orito, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Supreme Court Case Files
No abstract provided.
Paris Adult Theatre I V. Slaton, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Paris Adult Theatre I V. Slaton, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Supreme Court Case Files
No abstract provided.
Almeida-Sanchez V. United States, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Almeida-Sanchez V. United States, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Supreme Court Case Files
No abstract provided.
Schneckloth V. Bustamonte, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Schneckloth V. Bustamonte, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Supreme Court Case Files
No abstract provided.
Palmore V. United States, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Palmore V. United States, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Supreme Court Case Files
No abstract provided.
United States V. Dionisio, Lewis Powell Jr.
United States V. Dionisio, Lewis Powell Jr.
Supreme Court Case Files
No abstract provided.
Miller V. California, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Miller V. California, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Supreme Court Case Files
No abstract provided.
Grand Jury Witness Has Standing As An Aggrieved Person And May Suppress Evidence Obtained As A Result Of An Illegal Wiretap., Terrence W. Mcdonald
Grand Jury Witness Has Standing As An Aggrieved Person And May Suppress Evidence Obtained As A Result Of An Illegal Wiretap., Terrence W. Mcdonald
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract Forthcoming.
Recent Developments, Various Editors
Recent Developments, Various Editors
Villanova Law Review (1956 - )
No abstract provided.
Recent Developments, Various Editors
Recent Developments, Various Editors
Villanova Law Review (1956 - )
No abstract provided.
Constitutional Law - Search And Seizure - Fourth Amendment Vagueness - Evidence Excluded When Obtained By Search Incident To Vagrancy Arrest Under Statute Previously Held Void For Vagueness, Allen C. Warshaw
Villanova Law Review (1956 - )
No abstract provided.
Juvenile Courts--Juveniles In Delinquency Proceedings Are Not Constitutionally Entitled To The Right Of Trial By Jury--Mckeiver V. Pennsylvania, Michigan Law Review
Juvenile Courts--Juveniles In Delinquency Proceedings Are Not Constitutionally Entitled To The Right Of Trial By Jury--Mckeiver V. Pennsylvania, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
At a hearing in the juvenile court of Philadelphia in October 1968, Joseph McKeiver was declared a "delinquent child" and placed on probation by a juvenile court judge who determined that McKeiver had violated a Pennsylvania law. The juvenile court petition charged McKeiver, then sixteen years old, with robbery, larceny, and receiving stolen goods as the result of an incident in which McKeiver and twenty or thirty other youths took twenty-five cents from three teenagers. Despite the fact that the evidence against McKeiver consisted primarily of the weak and inconsistent testimony of two of the victims, the juvenile court judge, …
Sarno V. Illinois Crime Investigating Commission, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Sarno V. Illinois Crime Investigating Commission, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Supreme Court Case Files
No abstract provided.
Kastigar V. United States, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
Kastigar V. United States, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
Supreme Court Case Files
No abstract provided.
United States V. Brewster, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
United States V. Brewster, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Supreme Court Case Files
No abstract provided.
Shadwick V. Tampa, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Apodoca V. Oregon, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
Apodoca V. Oregon, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
Supreme Court Case Files
No abstract provided.
Kois V. Wisconsin, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Criminal Procedure--Self-Incrimination--Harmless Error--Application Of The Harmless Error Doctrine To Violations Of Miranda: The California Experience, Michigan Law Review
Criminal Procedure--Self-Incrimination--Harmless Error--Application Of The Harmless Error Doctrine To Violations Of Miranda: The California Experience, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
Using decisions of the appellate courts of California that have applied the federal harmless error rule to violations of Miranda v. Arizona and Escobedo v. Illinois, this Note will examine the logic and effects of the California application. However, the California experience can only be understood by first briefly describing the United States Supreme Court's decisions regarding harmless constitutional error and then showing the approaches taken by other states in their application of the harmless error rule to Miranda violations. Not only will this analysis put the California experience in its proper perspective, but it will also show the …
Criminal Procedure—Constitutional Right To Counsel In Parole Revocation Hearing, Clarence J. Sundram
Criminal Procedure—Constitutional Right To Counsel In Parole Revocation Hearing, Clarence J. Sundram
Buffalo Law Review
People ex rel. Menechino v. Warden, Greenhaven State Prison, 27 N.Y.2d 376, 267 N.E.2d 238, 318 N.Y.S.2d 449 (1971).
Constitutional Law--Double Jeopardy--Collateral Estoppel Is Constitutionally Required In Criminal Cases Because It Is Embodied In The Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause--Ashe V. Swenson, Michigan Law Review
Constitutional Law--Double Jeopardy--Collateral Estoppel Is Constitutionally Required In Criminal Cases Because It Is Embodied In The Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause--Ashe V. Swenson, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
It is, therefore, important in any analysis of the Ashe decision to examine the policies and purposes behind collateral estoppel and double jeopardy and the current effectiveness of the two doctrines in light of these policies and purposes. The policies of the double jeopardy guarantee are well defined in the federal cases. Basically, it is recognized that the state, having at hand many more resources than the average defendant can muster, should not be allowed to make successive attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense. Successive prosecutions cause the defendant expense and embarrassment and force him to live …
Judicial Problems In Administering Court Appointment Of Counsel For Indigents
Judicial Problems In Administering Court Appointment Of Counsel For Indigents
Washington and Lee Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Right To Counsel At Photographic Identifications
The Right To Counsel At Photographic Identifications
Washington and Lee Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Authorization Of Warrantless Wiretapping By The President In National Security Matters Involving Domestic Dissidents., William F. Mcquillen
The Authorization Of Warrantless Wiretapping By The President In National Security Matters Involving Domestic Dissidents., William F. Mcquillen
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract Forthcoming.
Intrusion Into The Body, William G. Eckhardt
Intrusion Into The Body, William G. Eckhardt
Faculty Works
The thesis of this article is that the rights of servicemen should be protected with the search and seizure concepts of the fourth amendment rather than with the fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination when intrusive bodily searches are required. The Supreme Court enunciated standard for intrusion into the body found in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966). The subsequent application of this standard in the federal courts, and its adoption in the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969, (Rev.) are explored. Federal court decisions discussing the privilege against self-incrimination are contrasted with opinions of the Court of Military Appeals …