Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Apartments And Houses: The Warranty Of Habitability, Walter H.E. Jaeger

Akron Law Review

“The trend towards greater consumer protection so evident in the products liability field is clearly discernible in the sale of new homes by the builder-vendor, and in the leasing of apartments by landlords. Some of the fundamental concepts of real property law, especially those which make no sense in modern society, have been, or are being, overruled and superseded by more enlightened and public policy-minded decisions of both the federal and state courts. It seems safe to predict that the warranty of habitability which governs the sale of new homes by the builder-vendor, adopted by a substantial majority of jurisdictions, …

Death Penalty; Cruel And Unusual Punishment; Individualized Sentencing Determination; Lockett V. Ohio; Bell V. Ohio, James C. Ellerhorst

Akron Law Review

“In Bell v. Ohio and Lockett v. Ohio the United States Supreme Court found the sentencing provisions of the Ohio capital punishment statute to be incompatible with the eighth and fourteenth amendments which prohibit cruel and unusual punishment. These two opinions represent the most recent attempt by the Supreme Court to explain what elements must be included in a constitutionally valid capital punishment statute.”

Commerce Clause; Privileges And Immunities Clause; State Hiring; Discrimination Against Nonresidents; Hicklin V. Orbeck, Donna N. Kemp

Akron Law Review

"In Hicklin v. Orbeck, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held' that Alaska's statute entitled "Local Hire Under State Leases"' violates the Constitution due to its discriminatory effect on nonresidents. Basing its decision on the Privileges and Immunities Clause,' the Court found that there was insufficient justification for the extensive discrimination against nonresidents required by the Act because the unemployment problem to be alleviated by the legislation was not due to a great influx of nonresident jobseekers. Rather, the Court attributed the problem to the fact that a large percentage of the unemployed in Alaska lack sufficient education and job …

In Rem Jurisdiction; Attachment Of Insurance Debts; State Statutes; O'Connorv. Lee-Hy Paving Corp., Eloise Lubbinge Mackus

Akron Law Review

The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in O'Connor v. Lee-Hy Paving Corp., upheld New York's insurance attachment procedure which serves as a vehicle for gaining personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants in causes of action that arise outside of New York. The court thereby determined that New York federal courts, in applying the procedures, had not violated defendant's due process because the minimum contacts requirement of the recent United Stated Supreme Court case, Shaffer v. Heitner, had been met.

First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Obscenity; Pinkus V. United States, Cary Douglass Caesa

Akron Law Review

“In its latest attempt to define a workable standard for obscenity rulings, the United States Supreme Court has held that children may not be included in a court's instruction as to the social group to whom the material would or would not be obscene. However, the Court held that sensitive persons and deviant groups may be included without unduly lowering the threshold of a finding of obscenity. Thus, Pinkus v. United States clarified the "community" whose judgment should define obscenity.”

First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Commerical Speech And Advertising; Metpath, Inc. V. Imperato, Sheryl S. Kantz

Akron Law Review

"The decision of Metpath, Inc. v. Imperato is indicative of the growing trend of the judiciary toward affording "commercial speech" the protective shield of the first amendment. As shown by Metpath, where the concern is advertising by a medical clinic, speech with commercial overtones is afforded protection where a public interest in the subject and content of the speech is demonstrated. However, the perimeters of such protection have not been defined by this or previous decisions."

Book Review: Much Ado About Nothing: The Brethren: Inside The Supreme Court, Richard L. Aynes

Akron Law Review

With such auspicious beginnings, The Brethren would appear to be a vital and important book which should be included upon the "required" reading list of those who wish to keep abreast of developments involving the Court and the evolution of constitutional law. Unfortunately, for anyone familiar with the decisions of the Court, the high expectations raised by The Brethren will not be met. Even when viewed in the most charitable light, the "insights" into the decision-making process to be gained from The Brethren are slight.2

Hiding Behind The Constitution: The Supreme Court And Procedural Due Process In Cleveland Board Of Education V. Loudermill, Jennifer Jaff

Akron Law Review

This term, the Supreme Court had an opportunity to affirm the approach of the plurality in Arnett v. Kennedy in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill. In Arnett, Justice Rehnquist's plurality opinion articulated the rule that statutorily-created entitlements can be limited by and conditioned upon the procedural rules that accompany those entitlements.

This article argues that the Supreme Court should have adopted Justice Rehnquist's approach in Arnett because it articulates a clear rule of law. Such clarity would have two effects. First, holders of entitlements would know what procedures they would be afforded at the time the entitlement was granted …

Does The "One-Party Consent" Exception Effectuate The Underlying Goals Of Title Iii?, Thomas C. Daniels

Akron Law Review

Title III is an attempt to balance two purposes - protection of private citizens and control of organized crime. 9 Because of these diametric purposes, discussion of all aspects of Title III is beyond the scope of this comment. The first section of this comment will discuss the Supreme Court's past and present position on the use of electronic surveillance. The remainder of the comment will trace the development of the "one-party consent" exception as codified in Title III, analyzing its continued validity and applicability to private unauthorized electronic surveillance.

Escobedo And Miranda Revisited, Arthur J. Goldberg

Akron Law Review

Shortly before the close of the 1983 term, the Supreme Court of the United States decided two cases, U.S. v. Gouveia and New York v. Quarles, which in effect overruled Escobedo v. Illinois and undermined Miranda v. Arizona.

Meritor Savings Bank V. Vinson: The Supreme Court's Recognition Of The Hostile Environment In Sexual Harassment Claims, Victoria T. Bartels

Akron Law Review

This casenote will examine Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson in light of the brief legal history of Title VII sexual harassment claims and will consider the implications of both the Court's holding and its dicta regarding the undecided issues.

Pennsylvania V. Union Gas Company: The Supreme Court Employs The Wrong Means To Reach The Proper End, Christopher A. Brodman

Akron Law Review

This casenote reviews the facts of Union Gas, the history of eleventh amendment jurisprudence, and the purposes of CERCLA. The note critically analyzes the Supreme Court's approach to evading eleventh amendment immunity. Finally, the note contemplates the impact of Union Gas on CERCLA and eleventh amendment law.

Of Flags And Menorahs: The Power Of Individual And Governmental Symbolic Speech, Mark F. Kohler

Akron Law Review

The aim of this article will be to explore the nature of symbolic speech, both individual and governmental. Using Johnson and Allegheny County as a backdrop, four themes will emerge from the article. First, both individuals and government speak and speak powerfully through symbols and symbolic conduct. Second, medium-based regulation of individual speech should receive careful judicial scrutiny. Third, unlike individual symbolic expression, governmental symbolic speech is subject to substantial content-based restrictions. Finally, careful distinctions must be drawn between government-initiated symbolic speech and governmental endorsement of individual symbolic speech.

Zivotofsky Ii's Two Visions For Foreign Relations Law, Harlan G. Cohen

Scholarly Works

The five opinions in Zivotofsky v. Kerry – four by the Supreme Court’s Republican-nominated Justices – exposed fault-lines over foreign relations law that have remained hidden in many of the Court’s other cases. This short essay, part of an AJIL Unbound Agora on the case, explores the most notable of these fissures – that between Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, and Chief Justice Roberts, who dissented. Their disagreement in this case highlights the two Justices’ very different visions of U.S. foreign relations law and reveals the dynamic that has defined the direction of the Court over the last …

Milkovich Vs. Lorain Journal Co.: Is The Supreme Court "Holding The Balance True" In Defamation Actions?, Sheila Noonan

Akron Law Review

This Note examines the background of defamation law and the Milkovich court's reasoning. The Note will discuss the Milkovich test's ability to distinguish fact from opinion and its potential future impact on broadcasters and journalists in the United States.

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.

The Supreme Court's Emerging Majority: Restraining The High Court Or Transforming Its Role?, Christopher E. Smith

Akron Law Review

This article will analyze the decisions and arguments about judicial restraint emanating from the increasingly dominant Reagan appointees on the Supreme Court in order to question whether these justices are achieving their purported goal or are merely continuing "activist"judicial behavior in the service of conservative political values.

Three Variations Of The Supreme Court's Legal Mind, Albert Lebowitz

Akron Law Review

With their independence, the Justices emerged, not, as Madison imagined them, a unified definition of reason but with diverging strains of legal mindedness that, as they almost inevitably clashed with each other, developed that added strength which emerges from dialectic. Madison's vision may have been too simple.

Constitutional theory is heavily concentrated in the area of judicial review, and the three issues raised in Marbury v. Madison are still subjects of heated debate and controversy. It is remarkable how topical this opinion remains.

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 …

Edmonson V. Leesville Concrete Company: Pre-Empting Prejudice, Andrea K. Huston

Akron Law Review

In Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., the United States Supreme Court decided the issue of whether parties in a civil case may use their peremptory challenges to exclude black venirepersons from the jury.

This Note will discuss the various limitations that courts have placed on the use of peremptory challenges, and the position of the Supreme Court. This Note will also discuss the Court's expansion of the state action doctrine, and the impact Edmonson will have on future cases.