Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Seattle University School of Law (198)
- American University Washington College of Law (174)
- UIC School of Law (103)
- University of Colorado Law School (76)
- University of Michigan Law School (64)
-
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (47)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (23)
- Roger Williams University (23)
- BLR (21)
- Georgetown University Law Center (19)
- Pepperdine University (18)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (17)
- Fordham Law School (16)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (16)
- Brooklyn Law School (14)
- Notre Dame Law School (14)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (14)
- Cornell University Law School (13)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (13)
- University of Maine School of Law (11)
- New York Law School (9)
- Duke Law (8)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (8)
- University of Georgia School of Law (7)
- Osgoode Hall Law School of York University (6)
- University at Buffalo School of Law (6)
- University of Arkansas, Fayetteville (6)
- Brigham Young University Law School (5)
- Florida State University College of Law (5)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (5)
- Keyword
-
- Litigation (65)
- Constitution (53)
- Supreme Court (53)
- First Amendment (38)
- Constitutional Law (37)
-
- Constitutional law (37)
- Due process (31)
- Courts (28)
- United States (25)
- Congress (24)
- Environmental law (24)
- Judges (24)
- Standing (24)
- Federalism (23)
- Fifth Amendment (23)
- Jurisdiction (23)
- Natural resources (23)
- Natural resources law (23)
- Public lands (23)
- Constitutional (21)
- Legislation (21)
- Practice and Procedure (21)
- Climate change (20)
- Evidence (20)
- Remedies (20)
- Federal (19)
- Jurisprudence (19)
- Law (19)
- Section 1983 (19)
- Privacy (18)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Seattle University Law Review (197)
- Sustainable Development Law & Policy (168)
- UIC Law Review (103)
- Touro Law Review (36)
- Michigan Law Review (35)
-
- The Future of Natural Resources Law and Policy (Summer Conference, June 6-8) (28)
- Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15) (21)
- ExpressO (20)
- Faculty Scholarship (19)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (18)
- Northwestern University Law Review (15)
- Pepperdine Law Review (15)
- Scholarly Works (15)
- Federal Communications Law Journal (14)
- Fordham Law Review (14)
- Publications (14)
- Articles (13)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (13)
- Federal Lands, Laws and Policies and the Development of Natural Resources: A Short Course (Summer Conference, July 28-August 1) (13)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (12)
- Scholarly Articles (12)
- Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - ) (12)
- Maine Law Review (11)
- Notre Dame Law Review (11)
- Faculty Publications (9)
- NYLS Law Review (9)
- Law School Blogs (8)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (8)
- Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law (7)
- Life of the Law School (1993- ) (6)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 811 - 840 of 1058
Full-Text Articles in Litigation
Finding New Constitutional Rights Through The Supreme Court’S Evolving “Government Purpose” Test Under Minimum Scrutiny, John H. Ryskamp
Finding New Constitutional Rights Through The Supreme Court’S Evolving “Government Purpose” Test Under Minimum Scrutiny, John H. Ryskamp
ExpressO
By now we all are familiar with the litany of cases which refused to find elevated scrutiny for so-called “affirmative” or “social” rights such as education, welfare or housing: Lindsey v. Normet, San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, Dandridge v. Williams, DeShaney v. Winnebago County. There didn’t seem to be anything in minimum scrutiny which could protect such facts as education or housing, from government action. However, unobtrusively and over the years, the Supreme Court has clarified and articulated one aspect of minimum scrutiny which holds promise for vindicating facts. You will recall that under minimum scrutiny government’s action is …
Using Capture Theory And Chronology In Eminent Domain Proceedings, John H. Ryskamp
Using Capture Theory And Chronology In Eminent Domain Proceedings, John H. Ryskamp
ExpressO
Capture theory--in which private purpose is substituted for government purpose--sheds light on a technique which is coming into greater use post-Kelo v. New London. That case affirmed that eminent domain use need only be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Capture theory focuses litigators' attention on "government purpose." That is a question of fact for the trier of fact. This article shows how to use civil discovery in order to show the Court that private purpose has been substituted for government purpose. If it has, the eminent domain use fails, because the use does not meet minimum scrutiny. This …
The Application Of Federal Common Law To Overcome Conflicting State Laws In The Supplemental Disgorgement Proceedings Of An Sec Appointed Receiver, Gauhar Naseem
ExpressO
In spite of the Erie doctrine, the application of federal common law has survived to overcome conflicting state laws in diversity actions where a federal law, interest or function is implicated. A federal court’s authority to substantively implement a federal common law rule over state law is clearest when the party to the action is a federal entity, namely an agency of the U.S. Government deriving its authority from the Constitution or some source of federal law. Analyzing such authority becomes more difficult in circumstances where parties to a diversity lawsuit are private citizens (not necessarily possessing any direct federal …
Setting The Stage For Public Health: The Role Of Litigation In Controlling Obesity, Jason A. Smith
Setting The Stage For Public Health: The Role Of Litigation In Controlling Obesity, Jason A. Smith
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.
Due Process And Punitive Damages: The Error Of Federal Excessiveness Jurisprudence, A. Benjamin Spencer
Due Process And Punitive Damages: The Error Of Federal Excessiveness Jurisprudence, A. Benjamin Spencer
ExpressO
The Supreme Court, in a line of several cases over the past decade, has established a rigorous federal constitutional excessiveness review for punitive damages awards based on the Due Process Clause. As a matter of substantive due process, says the Court, punitive awards must be evaluated by three “guideposts” set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore: the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, the ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, and a comparison of the amount of punitive damages to any “civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct.” Following up on this pronouncement …
The History Of Slave Marriage In The United States, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 299 (2006), Darlene C. Goring
The History Of Slave Marriage In The United States, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 299 (2006), Darlene C. Goring
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
In The Service Of Secrets: The U.S. Supreme Court Revisits Totten, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 475 (2006), Douglas Kash, Matthew Indrisano
In The Service Of Secrets: The U.S. Supreme Court Revisits Totten, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 475 (2006), Douglas Kash, Matthew Indrisano
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Manson V. Brathwaite: The Supreme Court's Misunderstanding Of Eyewitness Identification, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 539 (2006), Ruth Yacona
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Adjudicated On The Merits?: Why The Aedpa Requires State Courts To Exhibit Their Reasoning, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 995 (2006), Ezra Spilke
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Why Legislative Findings Can Pad-Lock Redistricting Plans In Racial-Gerrymandering Cases, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1371 (2006), Frank Adams
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Dostoyevsky And The Therapeutic Jurisprudence Confession, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 41 (2006), Amy D. Ronner
Dostoyevsky And The Therapeutic Jurisprudence Confession, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 41 (2006), Amy D. Ronner
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Uniform Laws Or State Immunity? The Constitutionality Of Section 106(A) After Seminole, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 969 (2006), John F. Hiltz
Uniform Laws Or State Immunity? The Constitutionality Of Section 106(A) After Seminole, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 969 (2006), John F. Hiltz
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Limiting The Presidency To Natural Born Citizens Violates Due Process, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1343 (2006), Paul A. Clark
Limiting The Presidency To Natural Born Citizens Violates Due Process, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1343 (2006), Paul A. Clark
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Disparate Impact And The Adea: So, Who Is Going To Be In The Comparison Group?, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1475 (2006), Timothy Tommaso
Disparate Impact And The Adea: So, Who Is Going To Be In The Comparison Group?, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1475 (2006), Timothy Tommaso
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
No Lawsuit Left Behind, Michael Heise
No Lawsuit Left Behind, Michael Heise
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Breaking The Bank: Revisiting Central Bank Of Denver After Enron And Sarbanes-Oxley, Celia Taylor
Breaking The Bank: Revisiting Central Bank Of Denver After Enron And Sarbanes-Oxley, Celia Taylor
ExpressO
No abstract provided.
Making State Law In Federal Court, Benjamin C. Glassman
Making State Law In Federal Court, Benjamin C. Glassman
ExpressO
Abstract: We know from Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins that unless the Constitution or a federal statute provides the rule of decision in federal court, state law does. Contrary to the assumption of several recent commentators, however, Erie itself does not tell the federal court how to ascertain what is the law of the state, and the refrain that federal courts are to predict what the state supreme court would decide not only proves unhelpful upon examination, but also has tended to confuse the courts themselves in recent years. Yet federal courts routinely face questions of state law that admit …
Fair Representation On Juries In The Eastern District Of Michigan: Analyzing Past Efforts And Recommending Future Action, Andrew J. Lievense
Fair Representation On Juries In The Eastern District Of Michigan: Analyzing Past Efforts And Recommending Future Action, Andrew J. Lievense
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Note builds on past recommendations to reform jury selection systems to make juries more representative of the community. Juries representing a fair cross section of the community are both a statutory and constitutional requirement, as well as a policy goal. How a judicial district designs and implements its jury selection system is important to meeting this requirement.
Part I of this Note analyzes the history and development of the representativeness interest on juries, explains how the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan attempted to meet this interest in the 1980s and 1990s, and reports and …
Book Review: Forensic Linguistics, Dru Stevenson
Book Review: Forensic Linguistics, Dru Stevenson
ExpressO
Review of John Gibbons' text "Forensic Linguistics"
In The Wake Of Gratz V. Bollinger: Standing On Thin Ice, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1037 (2005), Zubaida Qazi
In The Wake Of Gratz V. Bollinger: Standing On Thin Ice, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1037 (2005), Zubaida Qazi
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Preventing "You've Got Mail"™ From Meaning "You've Been Served": How Service Of Process By E-Mail Does Not Meet Constitutional Procedure Due Process Requirements, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1121 (2005), Matthew R. Schreck
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Balancing A Burning Cross: The Court And Virginia V. Black, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1205 (2005), Jason A. Abel
Balancing A Burning Cross: The Court And Virginia V. Black, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1205 (2005), Jason A. Abel
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Rules Of Or Substantive Law: Who Controls An Individual's Right To Choose A Lawyer In Today's Corporate Environment, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1265 (2005), Joan Colson
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Regulating The Regulators: The Impact Of Fda Regulation On Corporations' First Amendment Rights, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 95 (2005), Lisa M. Fealk-Stickler
Regulating The Regulators: The Impact Of Fda Regulation On Corporations' First Amendment Rights, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 95 (2005), Lisa M. Fealk-Stickler
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
American Courts Are Drowning In The "Gene Pool": Excavating The Slippery Slope Mechanisms Behind Judicial Endorsement Of Dna Databases, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 115 (2005), Meghan Riley
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Brown V. Board Of Education, Footnote 11, And Multidisciplinarity, Michael Heise
Brown V. Board Of Education, Footnote 11, And Multidisciplinarity, Michael Heise
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Constitutional Accommodation And The Rule(S) Of Courts, Lorne Sossin
Constitutional Accommodation And The Rule(S) Of Courts, Lorne Sossin
Articles & Book Chapters
Constitutional authority for the development and implementation of the rules of court lies with both the legislature, by its statutory power, and the judiciary, by the constitutional principles of judicial independence. The court rules in question here are those that govern court accessibility as well as the roles and responsibilities of parties in civil litigation. The three existing models of rule-making are court-led, where a majority of government officials, and collaborative, which lacks an evident majority of either. These rule-making bodies do not control court fees, the executive does, but in a system with any model, the judiciary always has …
The Supreme Court, Democracy And Institutional Reform Litigation, Ross Sandler, David Schoenbrod
The Supreme Court, Democracy And Institutional Reform Litigation, Ross Sandler, David Schoenbrod
NYLS Law Review
No abstract provided.
Public Availability Or Practical Obscurity: The Debate Over Public Access To Court Records On The Internet, Arminda Bradford Bepko
Public Availability Or Practical Obscurity: The Debate Over Public Access To Court Records On The Internet, Arminda Bradford Bepko
NYLS Law Review
No abstract provided.
Crawford V. Washington: Encouraging And Ensuring The Confrontation Of Witness, Robert P. Mosteller
Crawford V. Washington: Encouraging And Ensuring The Confrontation Of Witness, Robert P. Mosteller
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.