Courts Commons^™

Juvenile Discovery: A Developing Trend And A Word Of Caution, Diane Geraghty

Pepperdine Law Review

The use of discovery is acknowledged as essential to the efficient administration of justice and to the fairness of the adversary system in both civil and criminal proceedings. However, the juvenile court system has been slow to implement various means of discovery, largely as a result of the doctrine of parens patriae and the unique nature of the juvenile process. Although a discernible trend indicates acceptance of pretrial discovery, there has been considerable experimentation at decisional and statutory levels to develop procedurally protective discovery mechanisms. Professor Geraghty traces the use of discovery in juvenile proceedings and devotes particular attention to …

Procedural Rights In The Juvenile Court: Incorporation Or Due Process?, Glen W. Clark

Pepperdine Law Review

The landmark Supreme Court decision in In re Gault established, among other things, a juvenile's right to counsel in delinquency prosecutions. However, the decision left unanswered certain questions relating to the nature and scope of that right. In this article, the author examines whether or not Gault initiated a special due process right to counsel for juveniles apart from that body of sixth amendment law previously developed in criminal cases. Alternatively, he wonders whether Gault was meant to initiate a process of selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the juvenile justice system. The author critically analyzes the resulting …

From Gault To Fare And Smith: The Decline In Supreme Court Reliance On Delinquency Theory , Victor L. Streib

Pepperdine Law Review

The Supreme Court's reliance upon research and scholarly commentaries which examine the sociological factors that contribute to delinquent behavior has declined considerably during the last fourteen years. The author, in an effort to explain this decline, analyzes the seven major juvenile cases which have been considered by the Court since 1966. He conducts this analysis by focusing upon the subject matter of each decision, the importance of the issues arising therein and the author of each opinion. While some similarities appear, no consistent pattern emerges from this analysis. The article concludes that while juvenile law is an area which is …

Shearson V. United States Department Of Homeland Security: The Sixth Circuit Exempts National Security From The Privacy Act, Douglas A. Behrens

Legislation and Policy Brief

“ARMED AND DANGEROUS.” Imagine those words flashing on a Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) agent’s computer screen as you attempt to reenter your country of birth from a relaxing vacation. Reacting to the computerized warning, the CBP agents detain and question you for several hours before you are released from custody—without an explanation—and allowed to continue on your trip home as if nothing had happened.

This hypothetical scenario became very real for Julia Shearson and her four-year old daughter in January 2006, and marked the beginning of her quest for answers. Why was she flagged as “ARMED AND DANGEROUS?” What …

The End Of An Era: The Supreme Court (Finally) Butts Out Of Punitive Damages For Good, Jim Gash

Florida Law Review

Part I of this Article chronicles and summarizes the development of the Supreme Court’s punitive damages jurisprudence. Over the past two decades, the Court has increasingly constitutionalized various aspects of punitive damages jurisprudence, using both procedural and substantive due process rationales. A set of three “guideposts” has emerged that courts are to use in determining whether a punitive damages award runs afoul of constitutional guarantees.

Part II outlines the multiple punishments problem that is currently facing courts throughout the country and provides a brief overview of the various failed attempts and current proposals to remedy this problem.

Part III provides …

Two Faces Of Judicial Restraint (Or Are There More?) In Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago, Nelson Lund

Florida Law Review

Since the days of the Warren Court, conservatives have attacked “judicial activism.” Beginning with Judge Robert Bork’s Supreme Court nomination hearings, and lately with increasing frequency, liberals have sought to turn the tables. Critics now charge that conservative judges are activists, especially when they undermine liberal precedents or strike down liberal legislation. Defenders of judicial activism have all but disappeared. One sign of this apparent consensus is that all Supreme Court nominees now promise to be paragons of judicial restraint.

Some politicians and commentators have suggested that nominees are dissembling when they make such statements, and some of the sitting …

People V. Drew: Adoption Of The Ali Rule Of Insanity In California , David Darbyshire

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dedicatory Address: Act Well Your Part: Therein All Honor Lies , William H. Rehnquist

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bauguess V. Paine: The Denial Of The Attorney Fee Sanction At The (Mis)Trial Stage, Steven D. Campen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The California Supreme Court Survey: A Review Of Decisions: December 1980 - February 1981, Drago C. Baric, William C. Bollard

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The California Supreme Court Survey: A Review Of Decisions: July-November 1980, Craig H. Millet, Tina I. Waine

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Henry: The Further Expansion Of The Criminal Defendant's Right To Counsel During Interrogations, Kevin T. Kerr

Pepperdine Law Review

Despite the Burger Court's history of judicial conservatism, the Supreme Court in United States v. Henry exceeds the liberality of the Warren Court in the area of criminal defendant rights. The decision in Henry clearly provides further limitations upon the government's ability to conduct interrogations. The author examines the Court's factual and legal analysis of the case, emphasizes how the test established in Henry surpasses the rule promulgated in Massiah, and discusses the decision's impact as well as the curious turnabout of Chief Justice Burger.

A Barometer Of Freedom Of The Press: The Opinions Of Mr. Justice White , Michael J. Armstrong

Pepperdine Law Review

Since the Zurcher v. Stanford Daily decision which was authored by Justice Byron F. White, the news media has become increasingly concerned with its' first amendment protections from governmental searches. Since Justice White has been the voice of the United States Supreme Court on this very issue, the author submits that an examination of Justice White's media related opinions can serve as a "barometer" for the constitutional protections of the news media. The author examines the use of Justice White to the Supreme Court, his staunch adherence to stare decisis, and the historical foundation of the first amendment as they …

Has The Right To A Jury Trial As Guaranteed Under The Seventh Amendment Become Outdated In Complex Civil Litigation?, Georgiana G. Rodiger

Pepperdine Law Review

Recognizing the continually increasing burden placed on the jury in complex litigation cases, the author undertakes an extensive study of the origins of jury trials in the United States and England. Various arguments in favor of eliminating jury trials in complex litigation are discussed, along with a possible constitutional method of limiting the scope of the seventh amendment guarantee. The author also studies the case of Ross v. Bernhardt where the Supreme Court outlined a seldom used three- pronged test to determine whether or not a jury trial is constitutionally appropriate. The comment concludes that the factors in favor of …

Punitive Damages And The Drunken Driver, William C. Cooper

Pepperdine Law Review

A discussion of the history and theory of punitive damages which results in advocating their application in a drunk driving context after giving due consideration to the pros and cons of such a sanction. An analysis of case law will reveal the underlying rationale that has motivated certain jurisdictions in applying this severe penal approach in an attempt to deter and curtail the senseless destruction on our nation's highways as well as exploring the impetus behind those other jurisdictions that do not utilize the remedy of punitive damages. The culminating focus is on California's position in this regard. Finally, there …

A Reappraisal Of General And Limited Jurisdiction In California , Thomas Kallay

Pepperdine Law Review

The ability of a California court to assert jurisdiction over business enterprises currently depends upon how the court characterizes the nature and extent of the business's activities within the state. If the in-state business activities of a particular concern are extensive, California courts will exercise all-encompassing general jurisdiction over the cause of action, but if the activities are insufficient to warrant the exercise of general jurisdiction, which has been invariably the case, the court will then turn to a consideration of limited jurisdiction, which jurisdiction depends upon the quality and nature of the business's activities in the forum in relation …

The California Supreme Court Survey: A Review Of Decisions: July 1981-December 1981, Ronald M. Sorenson, Kevin D. Smith, Janet Rappaport

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Aviation Litigation: Federal Preemption And The Creation Of A Federal Remedy As A Means To Extinguish The Current Confusion In The Courts, Deborah J. Olsen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The California Supreme Court Survey - A Review Of Decisions: June 1981-August 1981, Craig H. Millet

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The California Supreme Court Survey: A Review Of Decisions: March - May 1981, Stephen H. Doorlag

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.