Jurisprudence Commons^™

Holland V. Illinois: Sixth Amendment Fair Cross-Section Requirement Does Not Preclude Racially-Based Peremptory Challenges, Debra L. Dippel

Akron Law Review

This note recaps the Supreme Court's previous decisions regarding defendant's objections to jury composition, including both equal protection and fair cross-section requirement analyses. It also discusses Holland, examines the various opinions in the case, and reviews the arguments for and against abolishing peremptory challenges. Finally, the note proposes a solution for the questions which Holland leaves unanswered.

Idaho V. Wright: Who Can Speak For The Children Now?, Laura Barker

Akron Law Review

This note discusses how the Court reached the decision in Idaho v. Wright to exclude the hearsay testimony of a child abuse victim. The note examines the Court's reasoning and the effects which the exclusion of hearsay testimony of child abuse victims may have on future prosecutions. The note concludes that the Court's decision is likely to add chaos into the already difficult and complex arena of child abuse prosecution.

Mugwump, Mediator, Machiavellian, Or Majority? The Role Of Justice O'Connor In The Affirmative Action Cases, Thomas R. Haggard

Akron Law Review

The purpose of this article is to provide a critical analysis of Justice O'Connor's affirmative action opinions. It will show that while her early record provides justification for all three characterizations, her more recent decisions suggest the emergency of a more favorable image. Her opinions in Croson and Media Broadcasting reflect the realization that a narrow, hair-splitting approach to this critical social and constitutional crisis will do little to hasten its resolution; that there is apparently no form of affirmative action that the liberal wing of the Court is unwilling to endorse, making her consensus by compromise approach a futile …

Congressional Power To Grant Federal Courts Jurisdiction Over States: The Impact Of Pennsylvania V. Union Gas, Donald L. Boren

Akron Law Review

Union Gas left many questions unanswered. Suing a state in federal court still remains what one federal judge described as "a wonderland of judicially created and perpetuated fiction and paradox."

The purpose of this article is to examine the impact of Union Gas on states sued in federal court. Part one presents an overview of eleventh amendment jurisprudence. Part two analyzes congressional power to create a cause of action against the states for monetary damages in federal court and examines the impact of Union Gas on the standard for finding congressional intent to abolish states' immunity.

Civil Rights In The 1990'S: Non-Discrimination Or Quotas?, Donald B. Ayer

Akron Law Review

I would like today to offer some thoughts on the way that we as a country have handled the issue of reverse discrimination as a means of pursuing equal opportunity.

My first observation is that there is an undeniable tension between competing approaches to racial and gender justice that have been advanced and pursued in recent years. I take as my starting point the fundamental principle embodied in the Equal Protection Clause (as well as the Declaration of Independence), that, as the elder Justice Harlan said in dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson,' the Constitution is colorblind, and does not allow …

Nonpayment Of Taxes: When Ignorance Of The Law Is An Excuse, Jon Strauss

Akron Law Review

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a well-known saying regarding criminal law. Yet the 1991 Supreme Court decision of Cheek v. United States held that a defendant's ignorance of the federal tax laws is an excuse to the crime of nonpayment of income taxes. This paper reviews the history of the defense of ignorance of the law in tax crimes, discusses the philosophical ramifications of this defense, and examines the extent to which the Supreme Court's allowance of this defense is appropriate.

The Search For The Fourth Amendment Seizure: It Won't Be Found On A Bus - Florida V. Bostick, James Spallino Jr.

Akron Law Review

The Florida v. Bostick decision raises important Fourth Amendment questions regarding police encounters with citizens.

Part I of this Note discusses the development of the legal standard used for determining when a consensual encounter results in an impermissible seizure. Part II reviews the Bostick decision. Part III analyzes the impact of the Bostick decision. This section argues that: (1) the status of the legal standard to be used in consensual encounter cases is now uncertain as a result of the Court's holding; (2) the Court sent a strong message to individuals and the law enforcement community by refusing to decide …

Eastern Airlines V. Floyd: Airline Passengers Denied Recovery For Emotional Distress Under The Warsaw Convention, Lisa M. Fromm

Akron Law Review

This Note reviews prior district court and appellate court decisions regarding the translation and scope of "bodily injury." Next, the Note discusses the Court's analysis in Floyd, including the arguments for and against allowing recovery for emotional distress under the Warsaw Convention. Finally, the Note examines the ramifications of the Floyd Court's interpretation and the uncertainties which remain in this area of the law.

United Auto Workers V. Johnson Controls, Inc.: One Small Step For Womankind, A. L. Cherry

Akron Law Review

In United Auto Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with the task of deciding whether women's childbearing capacity could be used to limit women's job choices and opportunities within certain industrial/ manufacturing fields. The Court decided that the ability to bear children could be used to so limit women, but only if the employer met a high standard. In Johnson Controls, employees who worked in a toxic work environment sought a determination that their employer's fetal protection policy discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act …

The Constutionality Of Punitive Damages: Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company V. Cleopatra Haslip, Thomas P. Mannion

Akron Law Review

This Note examines the history of the constitutional challenges to the doctrine of punitive damages. Next, this Note explores the Supreme Court's decision in Haslip. Finally, this Note examines the ramifications of the Haslip decision.

Kayser-Roth, Joslyn, And The Problem Of Parent Corporation Liability Under Cercla, James A. King

Akron Law Review

This article examines these issues by focusing on the responsibility of parent corporations as "owners" and as "operators" under section 107 of CERCLA. The scope of the analysis is limited to corporations that participate in the management of other corporations. Moreover, for the sake of simplicity, the reach of the analysis is limited to the situation in which a corporation owns one hundred percent of the stock of the subsidiary.

Part I provides a general overview of the principle of limited shareholder liability as it applies to parent corporations and of its economic underpinnings. Part II reviews judicial applications of …

State V. Jenks Fails To Clarify Appellate Standards Of Evidence Review In Ohio, Kevin L. Leffel

Akron Law Review

The analysis that follows focuses on two points. First, many reviewing courts in Ohio have failed to discern between reversing a conviction because it was against the manifest weight of the evidence and reversing because the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction. The concepts and associated standards of review are separate and distinct. Jenks failed to clarify the distinction and may actually add to the confusion. Second, the elimination of the circumstantial evidence rule has implications concerning the definition of reasonable doubt in Ohio.

Sale V. Haitian Centers Council, Inc.: Closing The Golden Door, Dennis E. Wasitis

Akron Law Review

The purpose of this note is to carefully examine the Supreme Court's reasoning in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc. Part II sketches the contours of our recent policies with Haiti, and highlights the relevant refugee law involved. Part III dissects the case itself and presents the facts, procedure, and reasoning of the majority and minority. Finally, Part IV probes the strength of the court's analysis, and assesses the future implications of the decision.

Lost In Translation? The Relevancy Of Kobe Bryant And Aristotle To The Legality Of Modern Warfare, Rachel E. Vanlandingham

Pepperdine Law Review

What do Kobe Bryant, Aristotle, and the continuing U.S. response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, have in common? President Barack Obama told the New Yorker in early 2014, in response to a question regarding the seeming resurgence of al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq, that “[t]he analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.” As this example demonstrates, the Obama Administration and others, in reference to the legality of the use of armed force against al Qaeda and similar …

Franz Kafka’S “Before The Law”: A Parable, Geoffrey L. Brackett

Pace Law Review

Despite Francis Bacon’s cautionary note, I have always been a fan of parables, and perhaps the most poignant one to speak for perils of the legal profession is Franz Kafka’s “Vor dem Gesetz” (“Before the Law”), one of the relatively few works to be published in his lifetime. It was seen first in the almanac Vom Jüngsten Tag: Ein Almanach Neuer Dichtung in December 1915 before it was included in his novel Der Prozess (The Trial), which was unpublished in his lifetime. He wrote it at one sitting on December 13, 1914, and in fewer than 650 words, Kafka illustrates …

A Look At Civil Gideon: Is There A Constitutional Right To Counsel In Certain Civil Cases?, Jess H. Dickinson

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Challenge And Dilemma Of Charting A Course To Constitutionally Protect The Severely Mentally Ill Capital Defendant From The Death Penalty, Lyn Entzeroth

Akron Law Review

This article examines these issues in the context of an important and emerging constitutional challenge to the death penalty: whether the death penalty can be imposed on capital defendants who suffer from severe mental illness at the time of the commission of their crimes. The American Bar Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill all endorse a death penalty exemption for the severely mentally ill. Recent law review articles suggest that such an exemption may even be compelled by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roper v. Simmons and Atkins v. …

Finding Nino: Justice Scalia's Confrontation Clause Legacy From Its (Glorious) Beginning To (Bitter) End, Joëlle Anne Moreno Professor

Akron Law Review

Until very recently, Justice Scalia has steered the Court’s modern confrontation jurisprudence. However, as discussed below, his leadership is increasingly threatened by deep divisions on questions of historical accuracy, constitutional interpretation, and the practical realities of twenty-first century criminal prosecutions.

Reassessing The Avoidance Canon In Erie Cases, Bernadette Bollas Genetin

Akron Law Review

This Article chronicles the Supreme Court’s inconsistent use of an avoidance canon in cases construing the substantive rights limitation of the Rules Enabling Act (Enabling Act or REA). It focuses primarily on the avoidance canon as used in cases under the REA branch of the Erie doctrine but also discusses avoidance in other REA contexts. The Article concludes that a reassessment and refocusing of the avoidance canon in Enabling Act jurisprudence is necessary... This Article explores the purposes and methodology that should guide avoidance in REA cases... I focus, in this Article, primarily on a subset of this group of …

Another Bizarre Twist In Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, Rachel A. Mattie

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.