Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Supreme Court of the United States Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Fifth Amendment

Discipline
Institution
Publication Year
Publication
Publication Type

Articles 121 - 126 of 126

Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States

Constitutional Law - Public Use Requirement And The Power Of Eminent Domain, Donald F. Oosterhouse S.Ed. Apr 1955

Constitutional Law - Public Use Requirement And The Power Of Eminent Domain, Donald F. Oosterhouse S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Under the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act, an agency was created to redevelop blighted and slum areas. Pursuant to the mode of operation prescribed in the statute, the agency intended to purchase or take by eminent domain all the property in the vicinity of appellant's property. After getting title to all the property the agency was to lease or sell it to private enterprisers to redevelop the area according to the agency's comprehensive plan, which specified definite boundaries for various uses. Appellant brought this action to enjoin the condemnation of his business property, claiming that the statute was unconstitutional because …

Go to article

Legislation - Witness Immunity Act Of 1954 - Constitutional And Interpretative Problem, George S. Flint S.Ed. Apr 1955

Legislation - Witness Immunity Act Of 1954 - Constitutional And Interpretative Problem, George S. Flint S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The passage in August, 1954 of a federal statute granting immunity under specified conditions to witnesses before congressional committees and in the federal courts marks a third legislative experiment designed to soften the effect of the Fifth Amendment as a limitation on the investigatory power of Congress. The first two attempts were less than successful. This comment will discuss the historical background of immunity legislation, and some possible constitutional pitfalls and problems of construction created by the statutory language.

Go to article

Legislation - Requirement Of Definiteness In Statutory Standards, Robert B. Krueger S.Ed. Dec 1954

Legislation - Requirement Of Definiteness In Statutory Standards, Robert B. Krueger S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

While it is universally recognized that definiteness in statutory standards is a condition prerequisite to the application of a statute, there is no agreement among either the courts or the writers as to the theory behind this requirement. However, common elements in each of the two prevalent theories indicate certain factors which may well be decisive on the question of definiteness in any given case. The purpose of this comment is to explore the practical implications of the interplay of these various factors and theories.

Go to article

Constitutional Law--Due Process And The Bill Of Rights--Self-Incrimination, F. William Hutchinson Jan 1948

Constitutional Law--Due Process And The Bill Of Rights--Self-Incrimination, F. William Hutchinson

Michigan Law Review

In the course of evolving workable doctrines which give substance and meaning to the skeletal phrase "due process of law" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment to limit state action, the Supreme Court has frequently been called on to determine the scope of the several prohibitions and guarantees of the Bill of Rights of the federal Constitution. This general problem, and more particularly the application of the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause to state criminal proceedings, was again presented in a recent case and resulted in a sharp division of opinion within the Court.

Go to article

The Supreme Court's Construction Of The Self-Incrimination Clause, Edward S. Corwin Dec 1930

The Supreme Court's Construction Of The Self-Incrimination Clause, Edward S. Corwin

Michigan Law Review

The second pivotal decision of the court in construction of the self-incrimination clause is that in Counselman v. Hitchcock, decided in 1892. An advantageous approach to it is furnished by certain earlier state and federal court decisions applying the common law regarding the privilege of witnesses.

Go to article

The Investigation Of Corporate Monopolies, Edson R. Sunderland Jan 1906

The Investigation Of Corporate Monopolies, Edson R. Sunderland

Articles

The Supreme Court of the United States has recently given a clear and brief statement of its views respecting the right of a corporation officer to refuse to testify on the ground that his testimony may subject the corporation to a criminal prosecution. Hale v. Henkel, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 370. Hale was summoned before a grand jury in a proceeding under the Sherman anti-trust act, and upon being interrogated respecting certain transactions of the MacAndrews & Forbes Co., of which he was Secretary and Treasurer, refused to answer, on the ground that the Federal immunity law was not broad …

Go to article

First Prev