Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Courts (347)
- Judges (344)
- State and Local Government Law (322)
- Constitutional Law (69)
- Law and Society (37)
-
- Criminal Law (34)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (33)
- Criminal Procedure (31)
- Law and Politics (25)
- Health Law and Policy (21)
- Legal History (21)
- Civil Procedure (19)
- First Amendment (19)
- Sexuality and the Law (17)
- Family Law (15)
- Legal Profession (15)
- Civil Law (13)
- Jurisprudence (13)
- Tax Law (13)
- Housing Law (12)
- Law and Gender (12)
- Intellectual Property Law (11)
- Human Rights Law (10)
- Law and Race (10)
- Business Organizations Law (9)
- Labor and Employment Law (9)
- Education Law (8)
- Election Law (8)
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court (50)
- Constitution (9)
- Roe v. Wade (9)
- Brown v. Board of Education (8)
- Constitutional law (8)
-
- Virginia (8)
- Employment Division v. Smith (7)
- First Amendment (7)
- Politics (6)
- Death (5)
- Education (5)
- History (5)
- Justices (5)
- Popular constitutionalism (5)
- Judicial (4)
- Legal history (4)
- Lemon v. Kurtzman (4)
- Lochner (4)
- Race (4)
- Regulation (4)
- United States (4)
- Bork (3)
- Civil Rights Act (3)
- Courts (3)
- Dred Scott (3)
- Federal (3)
- Foreword (3)
- Judge (3)
- Judges (3)
- Judicial selection (3)
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 331 - 360 of 460
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Preface, Stanley W. Hammer
Fool Me Once, Shame On Me; Fool Me Again And You're Gonna Pay For It: An Analysis Of Medicare's New Reporting Requirements For Primary Payers And The Stiff Penalties Associated With Noncompliance, Brent M. Timberlake, Monica A. Stahly
Fool Me Once, Shame On Me; Fool Me Again And You're Gonna Pay For It: An Analysis Of Medicare's New Reporting Requirements For Primary Payers And The Stiff Penalties Associated With Noncompliance, Brent M. Timberlake, Monica A. Stahly
University of Richmond Law Review
This article discusses the new requirements and the issues that currently face insurers, claimants, and attorneys in cases involving Medicare-eligible beneficiaries.
Smart Grid Technology: The Future Of The Electric Utility Industry, Michael W. Yackira
Smart Grid Technology: The Future Of The Electric Utility Industry, Michael W. Yackira
University of Richmond Law Review
Energy is leading many agendas these days, and, indeed, the energy landscape is changing-taking it a step further, it is actually transforming. This could be as big a transformation for the electric utility industry as the automated teller machine was for the banking industry and the cell phone was for telecommunications.
Our Forgotten Founders: Reconstruction, Public Education, And Constitutional Heroism, Thomas G. Donnelly
Our Forgotten Founders: Reconstruction, Public Education, And Constitutional Heroism, Thomas G. Donnelly
Law Faculty Publications
Works on the Founding generation consistently inhabit national bestseller lists. For instance, David McCullough’s book 1776 placed fifth on Publishers Weekly’s 2005 list, beating out pop culture favorites Blink and Freakonomics. Over the last decade, other similarly successful titles have included His Excellency, Founding Brothers, and John Adams. In fact, McCullough’s hagiographic biography of our nation’s second President was later transformed into an Emmy Award-winning mini-series on HBO—to say nothing of President Obama’s decision to add it to his 2009 summer reading list. In short, Americans revere their eighteenth-century Founders. ...
A Popular Approach To Popular Constitutionalism: The First Amendment, Civic Education, And Constitutional Change, Thomas G. Donnelly
A Popular Approach To Popular Constitutionalism: The First Amendment, Civic Education, And Constitutional Change, Thomas G. Donnelly
Law Faculty Publications
Popular constitutionalists fear that our constitutional culture is becoming less popular. At the same time, these scholars often ignore key popular sources of constitutional meaning. Their accounts focus, instead, on the elite conflicts that give rise to constitutional change, particularly the ongoing debates between elected officials, movement leaders, and the Supreme Court. Although these studies are essential to understanding the pathways for promoting non-Article V constitutional change, they are "popular" only in the sense that they focus on non-judicial actors and politically salient controversies. The constitutional life of the average citizen is generally ignored. If legal scholars are serious about …
Professor Robert E. Shepherd, Jr.: Tending To His Flock To Improve Its Lot, John P. Cunningham
Professor Robert E. Shepherd, Jr.: Tending To His Flock To Improve Its Lot, John P. Cunningham
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
In Memoriam: Robert E. Shepherd, Jr., John G. Douglass
In Memoriam: Robert E. Shepherd, Jr., John G. Douglass
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Professor Robert E. Shepherd, Jr. September 22, 1937 - December 11, 2008, Hon. Walter S. Felton Jr.
Professor Robert E. Shepherd, Jr. September 22, 1937 - December 11, 2008, Hon. Walter S. Felton Jr.
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Extraordinary Rendition: A Wrong Without A Right, Robert Johnson
Extraordinary Rendition: A Wrong Without A Right, Robert Johnson
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Real Feminists For Motherhood Coalition, Petitioner V. Virginia, Bridget Leanne Welborn
Real Feminists For Motherhood Coalition, Petitioner V. Virginia, Bridget Leanne Welborn
Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest
JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, and JUSTICES BREYER, STEVENS, and THOMAS joined. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS filed a concurring opinion, in which JUSTICE THOMAS joined. JUSTICE SCALIA filed a dissenting opinion, in which JUSTICE ALITO joined. JUSTICE GINSBERG filed a dissenting opinion, in which JUSTICE SOUTER joined. Since this Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973,1 we received numerous requests to reconsider the validity of that ruling or to otherwise limit its application. Petitioner renews this request, asking us to discard our much maligned and now limited Roe doctrine. After struggling with this …
Railroad Law, Brent M. Timberlake
Railroad Law, Brent M. Timberlake
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Guarding The Guardians: Judges' Rights And Virginia's Judicial Inquiry And Review Commission, Jeffrey D. Mcmahan Jr.
Guarding The Guardians: Judges' Rights And Virginia's Judicial Inquiry And Review Commission, Jeffrey D. Mcmahan Jr.
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Dear President Bush: Leaving A Legacy On The Federal Bench, Carl Tobias
Dear President Bush: Leaving A Legacy On The Federal Bench, Carl Tobias
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Friction By Design: The Necessary Contest Of State Judicial Power And Legislative Policymaking, Michael L. Buenger
Friction By Design: The Necessary Contest Of State Judicial Power And Legislative Policymaking, Michael L. Buenger
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Really Leaving No Child Behind: How The Supreme Court's Student Speech Doctrine Compromises Modern Education Reform - And How It Can Use The In Loco Parentis Doctrine To Change It, Scott J. Street
Richmond Public Interest Law Review
tudent speech" doctrine defined by Tinker in favor of an in loco parentis standard that defers to the expertise of school officials in maintaining a safe, effective, and orderly school environment. Contrary to what its critics assume, an in loco parentis standard would not give school officials carte blanche to violate their students' rights. It would, for example, prohibit school officials from discriminating against students on the basis of viewpoint. But as long as Tinker's student speech doctrine survives, efforts to improve our schools and prepare our children for the rigors of the twenty-first century will suffer. The in loco …
Independent Of The Constitution?--Issues Raised By An Independent Federal Legislative Ethics Commission With Independent Enforcement Authority, Paul Taylor
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Really Leaving No Child Behind: How The Supreme Court's Student Speech Doctrine Compromises Modern Education Reform - And How It Can Use The In Loco Parentis Doctrine To Change It, Scott J. Street
Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest
tudent speech" doctrine defined by Tinker in favor of an in loco parentis standard that defers to the expertise of school officials in maintaining a safe, effective, and orderly school environment. Contrary to what its critics assume, an in loco parentis standard would not give school officials carte blanche to violate their students' rights. It would, for example, prohibit school officials from discriminating against students on the basis of viewpoint. But as long as Tinker's student speech doctrine survives, efforts to improve our schools and prepare our children for the rigors of the twenty-first century will suffer. The in loco …
Overcoming Lochner In The Twenty-First Century: Taking Both Rights And Popular Sovereignty Seriously As We Seek To Secure Equal Citizenship And Promote The Public Good, Thomas B. Mcaffee
Overcoming Lochner In The Twenty-First Century: Taking Both Rights And Popular Sovereignty Seriously As We Seek To Secure Equal Citizenship And Promote The Public Good, Thomas B. Mcaffee
University of Richmond Law Review
Professor McAffee reviews substantive due process as the textual basis for modern fundamental rights constitutional decision-making. He contends that we should avoid both the undue literalism that rejects the idea of implied rights, as well as the attempt to substitute someone's preferred moral vision for the limits, and compromises, that are implicit in and intended by the Constitution's text. He argues, moreover, that we can largely harmonizethe variousgoals of our constitutionalsystem by taking rights se- riously and by understanding that securing rights does not ex-haustthe Constitution'spurposes.
Parker V. District Of Columbia: Putting The "I'S" In Milita, Katharine E. Kohm
Parker V. District Of Columbia: Putting The "I'S" In Milita, Katharine E. Kohm
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.