Courts Commons^™

Determining A Standard For Housing Discrimination Under Title Viii, Richard C. Cahn

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Property Rights Of Unmarried Cohabitants In New York: Proposal For Legislative Action Towards A More Equitable Future, Helene Kulczycki

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gideon V. Wainwright A Quarter-Century Later, Yale Kamisar

Articles

In a brief working paper sent to all conference participants, Professor Burt Neuborne suggested that we might consider several themes, among them "Gideon Celebrated," "Gideon Fulfilled," and "Gideon Betrayed." I think these are useful headings.

The Judiciary's Use Of Supervisory Power To Control Federal Law Enforcement Activity, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In McNabb v. United States, the Supreme Court claimed- for the first time in its history-the prerogative of "establishing and maintaining civilized standards of procedure and evidence" in the exercise of "supervisory authority over the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts." Since then, the Court has used this self-declared oversight power on numerous occasions and for a wide variety of purposes, but it has never adequately explained either the provenance or the scope of this type of judicial authority. Lower federal courts have followed suit, on the largely unexamined assumption that they too are endowed with supervisory …

Siskel And Ebert At The Supreme Court, Thomas E. Baker

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Redefining the Supreme Court's Role: A Theory of Managing the Federal Judicial Process by Samuel Estreicher and John Sexton

Choosing Judges The Democratic Way, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

A generation ago, the pressing question in constitutional law was the countermajoritarian difficulty.' Americans insisted their government was a democratic republic and took that to mean rule by a majority of elected representatives in various offices and bodies, federal and local. Yet courts whose members had not won election presumed to override the actions of executive and legislative officers who had. The conventional answer to this apparent paradox was the Constitution, which arguably owed its existence to the people directly. Judicial review was justified, accordingly, when court decisions were rooted firmly in the particular text, structure, or historical backdrop of …

Introduction, Dean Howard Glickstein, Honorable Leon D. Lazer

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Housing Discrimination, Richard F. Bellman ,Esq., Richard Cahn ,Esq.

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Arizona V. Youngblood: Does The Criminal Defendant Lose His Right To Due Process When The State Loses Exculpatory Evidence?, Willis C. Moore

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fourth Amendment, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

First Amendment, Burt Neuborne

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Employment Discrimination, Charles Stephen Ralston, Paul Kamenar, William Bradford Reynolds, Gail Wright-Sirmans

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Section 1983, Martin A. Schwartz, Honorable George C. Pratt, Leon Friedman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Weighted Voting, Richard David Emery ,Esq.

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Scholars' Reply To Professor Fried, Yale Kamisar, Lee C. Bollinger, Judith C. Areen, Barbara A. Black

Articles

As Solicitor General of the United States, Charles Fried, like any good advocate, was often in the position of attempting to generate broad holdings from relatively narrow and particularistic Supreme Court decisions. This was especially true in affirmative action cases. There, the Department of Justice argued that cautious precedents actually stood for the broad proposition that measures designed to put members of disadvantaged groups on a plane of equality should, for constitutional purposes, be treated the same as measures intended to stigmatize or subordinate them. The Supreme Court, however, has consistently rejected this reading of its precedents and the broad …

Duckworth V. Eagan: A Little-Noticed Miranda Case That May Cause Much Mischief, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Professor Yale Kamisar, the country's foremost scholar of Miranda and police interrogation, presents an analysis and critique of the Supreme Court's latest interpretation of Miranda. In Duckworth, a 5-4 Court upheld the "if and when" language systematically used by the Hammond, Indiana, Police Department: "We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court." The real issue was whether the police effectively conveyed the substance of a vital part of Miranda: the right to have a lawyer appointed prior to any questioning. Professor Kamisar …

Commentary On 'Multiemployer Bargaining Rules': The Limitations Of A Strictly Economic Analysis, Theodore J. St. Antoine

Articles

Labor law bulks large on the docket of the United States Supreme Court. Yet never would I have included Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. NLRB, dealing with the seemingly mundane issue of an employer's right to withdraw from multiemployer bargaining, in the select company of cases addressing such pulse-quickening subjects as affirmative action, picketing as free speech, and union antitrust liability. Professor Douglas Leslie's elegant and provocative article shows just how wrong I was--or at least just how far imaginative analysis can go toward seeing a world in a grain of sand. I lay no claim to expertise …

Political Law, Legalistic Politics: A Recent History Of The Political Question Doctrine, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

"Bad" Judicial Activism And Liberal Federal-Courts Doctrine: A Comment On Professor Doernberg And Professor Redish, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

JUDUCIAL ACTIVISM IS often portrayed as a liberal vice. This perception is wrong both historically and, as Professor Redish argues, ³ currently as well. The federal judiciary has been and still is an activist institution, working with both substantive law and jurisdictional rules to achieve its own policy goals. It has done this in statutory, constitutional, and common-law matters. Specifically, the Supreme Court of the United States has actively-shaped the jurisdiction of the federal courts in a restrictive and generally conservative manner.

Professors Doernberg⁴ and Redish attack this last form of activism by the federal courts, activism in shaping …

Federal Court Review Of Arbitrary State Court Decisions, David T. Azrin

Michigan Law Review

Part I of this Note argues that the Thompson, Logan, and Hicks cases can be read narrowly to deal primarily with concern about protecting specific constitutional guarantees such as criminal procedural protections, equal protection guarantees, and first amendment freedoms. Arguably, in order to avoid dealing explicitly with the broader constitutional questions raised by the state decisions, the Court reversed the state decisions as arbitrary interpretations of state law. Part II argues that the rule against arbitrary state decisions suggested by Thompson, Logan, and Hicks is incompatible with federalism because it interferes with states' ability to develop law over state …

Administrative Searches For Evidence Of Crime: The Impact Of New York V. Burger, Perry S. Reich

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Johnson V. Transportation Agency: The United States Supreme Court Weighs Statistical Imbalance In Favor Of Affirmative Action, 21 J. Marshall L. Rev. 593 (1988), Denise C. Hockley-Cann

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Affirmative Action: A Divided Supreme Court, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 99 (1988), Arthur J. Marinelli

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Johnson: The Supreme Court Extends The Feres Doctrine Bar To Ftca Recovery Against Non-Military Tortfeasors, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 199 (1988), Susan Beaupre Lindholm

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Doing Politics In The United States Supreme Court, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 265 (1988), John D. Gorby

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Carnegie-Mellon University V. Cohill: The United States Supreme Court Upholds The Authority Of Federal Courts To Remand Properly Removed Pendent Jurisdiction Claims, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 389 (1988), William Barrett

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mccleskey V. Kemp: The Supreme Court Pulls The Switch On Future Judicial Challenges To The Death Penalty, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 215 (1988), William H. Jones

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Rights In Transition: Sections 1981 And 1982 Cover Discrimination On The Basis Of Ancestry And Ethnicity, Eileen Kaufman, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Risk Arbitrage And Insider Trading: A Functional Analysis Of The Fiduciary Concept Under Rule 10b-5, Laurence A. Steckman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Marriage, Procreation, And The Prisoner: Should Reproductive Alternatives Survive During Incarceration?, Jacqueline B. Deoliveira

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.