Courts Commons^™

Sentencing In Indiana: Appellate Review Of The Trial Court's Discretion, John Eric Smithburn

Journal Articles

Two significant developments, legislative and judicial, have taken place in Indiana criminal law in recent months which may offer an effective response to the problem of unguided discretionary sentencing. The Indiana Penal Code has been revised to require that the trial court, before sentencing a convicted felon, conduct a separate hearing for the purpose of determining the appropriate sentence and to make a record of the hearing which must include a statement of the court's reasons for selecting the sentence imposed. The General Assembly has also provided specific directives which the trial court must consider in determining a proper sentence …

Judicial Review: Its Influence Abroad, Donald P. Kommers

Journal Articles

The doctrine of judicial review, having been nourished in a legal culture and socio-political environment favorable to its growth, is America’s most distinctive contribution to constitutional government. Judicial review as historically practiced in the United States was duly recorded abroad, with varying degrees of influence and acceptability. During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the influence of judicial review was most conspicuous in Latin America, where it was adopted as an articulate principle of numerous national constitutions, while most European nations consciously rejected it as incompatible with the prevailing theory of separation of powers. Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, although marginally …

Comparative Judicial Review And Constitutional Politics, Donald P. Kommers

Journal Articles

Donald P. Kommers reviews Richard D. Baker's Judicial Review in Mexico: A Study of the Amparo Suit (Austin and London: University of Texas Press, 1971); B. L. Strayer's Judicial Review of Legislation in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1968); Heinz Laufer's Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit und politischer Prozess (Tiibingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck ], 1968); Mauro Cappelletti's Judicial Review in the Contemporary World (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1971); Edward McWhinney's Judicial Review (4th ed.) (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969); Richard E. Johnston's The Effect of Judicial Review on Federal-State Relations in Australia, Canada, and the United States (Baton Rouge: Louisiana …

Abortion: The Court Decides A Non-Case, Joseph O'Meara

Journal Articles

It took the Supreme Court 105 years to discover that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a personal right of privacy that invalidates state statutes forbidding abortion except to save the mother's life. As Mr. Justice Rehnquist pointed out, in a dissent that no member of the Court attempted to answer, at least thirty-six states had such anti-abortion statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. None was attacked on the ground that they offended the newly adopted amendment. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the …

Flood V. Kuhn (407 U.S. 258) Trial Transcript, United States District Court- Southern District Of New York

Curt Flood Trial: May 19 - June 10, 1970

No abstract provided.

Brief Amicus Curiae, Urging Reversal, On Behalf Of - John J. Russell, Bishop Of Richmond; Lawrence Cardinal Shehan, Archbishop Of Baltimore; Paul A. Hallinan, Archbishop Of Atlanta; Philip M. Hannan, Archbishop Of New Orleans; Robert E. Lucey, Archbishop Of San Antonio; Joseph B. Brunini, Apostolic Administrator Of Natchez-Jackson; Lawrence M. Defalco, Bishop Of Amarillo; Joseph A. Dirick, Apostolic Administrator Of Nashville; Thomas K. Gorman, Bishop Of Dallas-Ft. Worth; Joseph H. Hodges, Bishop Of Wheeling; John L. Morkovsky, Apostolic Administrator Of Galveston-Houston; Victor J. Reed, Bishop Of Oklahoma City And Tulsa; L. J. Reicher, Bishop Of Austin; Thomas Tschoepe, Bishop Of San Angelo; Ernest L. Unterkoefler, Bishop Of Charleston; Vincent S. Waters, Bishop Of Raleigh; The National Catholic Conference For Interracial Justice; And The National Catholic Social Action Conference, William M. Lewers C.S.C, William B. Ball

Court Briefs

No. 395
Richard Perry Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia

On Appeal from the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

From the Summary Statement of the Case

Appellants, Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving, were convicted on January 6, 1959, in the Circuit Court of Caroline County, Virginia, under an indictment charging that "the said Richard Perry Loving being a White person and the said Mildred Delores Jeter [Loving] being a Colored person, did unlawfully and feloniously go out of the State of Virginia, for the purpose of being married and with the intention of returning to the State of …

Introduction, Joseph O'Meara

Journal Articles

A symposium was held on February 29, 1964, devoted to the constitutional amendments proposed by the Council of State Governments. Very briefly these amendments would (1) vest power to amend the Constitution in State legislatures; (2) set up a "Court of the Union," composed of the chief justice of the supreme court of each of the 50 states, which would have authority to review "any judgment of the Supreme Court relating to the rights reserved to the states or to the people by this Constitution"; (3) take from the federal courts all jurisdiction over the apportionment of representation in State …

Obscenity In The Supreme Court: A Note On Jacobellis V. Ohio, Joseph O'Meara, Thomas L. Shaffer

Journal Articles

According to the opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan in Jacobellis v. Ohio, the Supreme Court itself must weigh and decide the issues in obscenity cases; it must decide whether the disputed material is obscene; and it must decide this according to the standards of the community, that is, the whole country—all 50 States. In other words, the Court must apply a national standard. This note is addressed primarily to that opinion.

The Supreme Court In The American Constitutional System: Foreword, Joseph O'Meara

Journal Articles

Our Symposium’s purpose is to examine the function of the Supreme Court and the conditions under which it necessarily operates, and in this way, we hope, to illuminate some of the far-reaching questions which are involved.

The Advent Of The Administrative Process And Its Future, Thomas Frank Konop

Journal Articles

Every government exercises three governmental powers E that are necessary for its existence. They are Taxation, Police Power, and the Power of Eminent Domain. Every government, however crude, or whatever we may call it, must have the power first to make the law, which is called the legislative power; second, it must have the power to declare what the law is, which is the judicial power; and third, it must have the power to enforce the law and this is called the executive power.

In the very early governments such as the government of the clan or tribe, these three …

Appeal To The Conscience Of The Practicing Bar, Joseph O'Meara

Journal Articles

The impact of the war will inevitably produce vast and profound, if not revolutionary changes in our economic and political arrangements, putting in jeopardy our democratic way of life. The ominous shadow of these changes that press upon us, due to the ascendancy of Force in so large a part of the world, gives rise to the question: What can we do about it? More particularly: What can the lawyer, as a lawyer, do about it? That leads to the deeper question of the role of Law in the successful functioning of the democratic process. In every state and city, …

Reorganization Of The Federal Judiciary, Thomas Frank Konop

Journal Articles

This article examines the controversy the Supreme Court have declaring unconstitutional several acts of Congress by striking social and beneficial laws from the statute books. The Supreme Court in effect told the American people that because of the Constitution their representatives could not pass these laws. It is the Supreme Court that is usurping the power of Congress and the President. It is the Supreme Court that has been destroying laws passed by Congress for a better life, more liberty and equality; social justice, and pursuit of happiness of one hundred thirty million people. This article favors the President's proposal …

Supreme Court Opinion Contradicting The Scintilla Rule, Joseph O'Meara

Journal Articles

The opinion of the supreme court in Cleveland Railway Co. v. Kukucz' cannot logically co-exist with the scintilla rule and, therefore, imperatively requires a re-examination of that trouble- some doctrine and a deliberate choice between it and the case referred to. The scintilla rule should be abandoned.

The Scintilla Rule, Joseph O'Meara

Journal Articles

The language quoted from Jacob Laub Baking Company v. Middleton, in which all concurred, will undoubtedly tend to increase the number of directed verdicts and appears to be, in effect, a repudiation of the scintilla rule. The problem, therefore, is to devise a formula which, while meeting the objections to the scintilla rule, will put the judge on notice that a greater degree of assurance is required to direct a verdict than to set one aside. Holding that the conclusion is against.the plaintiff beyond a reasonable doubt is not inconsistent with recognizing that there is "some evidence, however slight". The …

Congress And The Supreme Court (Continued), Thomas Frank Konop

Journal Articles

In 1924, Plank Five of the Platform of the Independent candidate for President proposed a constitutional amendment that would enable Congress to override judicial review by reenacting a statute. Such an amendment would, of course, run in stark contrast to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison. This paper explores nature of this proposed amendment and analyzes the implications of overturning the foundation of judicial power in our tripartite system of government. In sum, the author suggests that judicial review serves as an excellent check on Congress and the temporary passions of the public itself.

Congress And The Supreme Court, Thomas Frank Konop

Journal Articles

In 1924, Plank Five of the Platform of the Independent candidate for President proposed a constitutional amendment that would enable Congress to override judicial review by reenacting a statute. Such an amendment would, of course, run in stark contrast to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison. This paper explores nature of this proposed amendment and analyzes the implications of overturning the foundation of judicial power in our tripartite system of government. In sum, the author suggests that judicial review serves as an excellent check on Congress and the temporary passions of the public itself.