DOCSLIB.ORG

1939 Journal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

— — I OCTOBEE TEEM, 1939 STATISTICS Original Appellate Total Number of cases on docket _ _ 15 1, 063 1, 078 Cases disposed of __ 4 942 946 Remaining on docket 11 121 132 Cases disposed of By written opinions 151 By per curiam opinions 97 By denial or dismissal of petitions for certiorari 690 By motion to dismiss or per stipulation 8 Number of written opinions 137 Number of admissions to bar 1,016 REFERENCE INDEX Page. Butler, J., death of, announced 73 Butler, J., resolutions of the Bar presented by Attorney Gen- eral Jackson 242 Murphy, J., commission read and oath taken (February 5, 1940) . 146 Eobert H. Jackson, Attorney General, presented his Commis- sion 126 Francis Biddle, Solicitor General, presented 126 Proceedings commemorating 150th Anniversary of Court (February 1, 1940) 136 Address of Attorney General Jackson 136 Address of Charles A. Beardsley, President of American Bar Association 139 Address of the Chief Justice 141 Advisory Committee requested to submit amendments to Eules of Civil Procedure 54 Administrative Office of United States Courts Henry P. Chandler appointed Director 75 Elmore Whitehurst appointed Assistant Director 54 Transfer of appropriations 54,221 Allotment of Justices 158 181208—40 98 — II Page. Disbarment, In the matter of Clyde H. Walker 34 Anna L. Cooke 34,81 David B. Getz 35,81 Walter C. Balderston 46 French B. Loveland (failure to reply to Clerk's communi- cations) 81, 109, 115 Rules of Supreme Court—Rule 41 amended 192 Regulations prescribed in reference to appeals from Court of Claims appearing in 210 U. S. rescinded 193 Bankruptcy—General Order 53 (2) amended 266 Rules of Civil Procedure—Rule 81 (a) (6) amended and re- ported to Congress 108 Counsel appointed (No. 562) 123 Opinions amended (Nos. 43, 16, 210, 499) 82,164,221 Opinion withdrawn (No. 19) 123 Judgments affirmed by equally divided Court (Nos. 48, 317, 204, 355) 75, 92, 129, 157 Bill of Complaint—motion for leave to file denied by equally divided Court (Oklahoma v. Woodring) 157 Judgment reversed upon consent of Solicitor General (No. 698) 191 Mandamus—^return to order to show cause why leave to file should not be granted treated as answer to petition (No. 14, Original) 205 Contempt—rule issued requiring defendant to show cause why leave to file petition for rule to show cause should not be granted. Argued on return to rule to show cause and leave to file petition granted. Defendant directed to show cause why it should not be adjudged in contempt. Petition denied. (No. 10, original, October Term, 1935) 6, 174,219 Moot case—motion to vacate granted (No. 22—State Court)— 2,5 Moot case—^motion to reverse submitted. Judgment vacated (No. 822—State Court) 257,260 Moot case—judgment reversed (No. 35) 106 Pro hac vice—leave granted counsel not admitted to practice to file papers and present oral argument (No. 667) 171 Appeal—application for denied by entire Court (Bess v. W. Va.) 35 Appeal dismissed and certiorari granted (No. 201, 239, 822) __ 9,214 Appeal dismissed and treating appeal as petition for certiorari, certiorari granted to review judgment on one count. Juris- diction noted on appeal from judgment on the other count. (No. 632) 164 Ill Page. Certiorari denied with two Justices dissenting (Nos. 57, 64, 190, 238, 249, 250) 14 Certiorari—petition for certiorari struck from docket on ground that petition not presented by or on behalf of the United States, the party to the record (No. 490) 76 Certiorari—petition directed to United States District Court under temporary provision of Bankruptcy Act (Nos. 625, 793) 131,223 Certiorari denied for failure to file within time (Nos. 639, 740) 148,207 Certiorari denied on ground that question presented not of public importance because of repeal of statute involved (No. 944) 254 Certiorari—consideration of petition deferred until next term (Nos. 552 and 558) 231 Continuance granted on motion of State of Virginia as amicus curiae (No. 674) 214 Suggestion of death—case dismissed on ground that action had abated (No. 21) 2,5 Suggestion of diminution of record (Nos. 342, 353, 722, 562) __ 36, 47, 195, 176, 190 Motion to join as party petitioner denied because made be- yond time within which to file petition for writ of certiorari (No. 286) , 55 Motion to intervene denied (No. 193). (Applicant was a party to the record and could have joined in or filed separate petition for certiorari.) Motion to file amicus curiae brief also denied 62,67,90 Motion to intervene denied (No. 193) 71,75 Motion of State of Virginia for leave to intervene denied with leave to file brief as amicus curiae (No. 674) 200,206 Motion of individual to intervene as party complainant in original action between two States denied (No. 15, orig- inal) 263, 267 Motion to release proceedings from order of secrecy denied (No. 488) 77,83 Motion to require petitioner to post cost bond denied without prejudice to application to Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 648) 133, 149 Motion for immediate issuance of mandate denied (No. 593) 234„238 Motion for suspension of order of 1. C. C. pending appeal denied (Philadelphia-Detroit Lines v. U. S.) 60 Motion for stay granted and later vacated by order (No. 355) _47, 197 IV Page. Motion for stay granted until action on jurisdictional state- ment. Jurisdiction noted and stay continued until final disposition. (No. 930) 237,268 Motion for temporary restraining order pending motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied (Ex parte Meredith) 237 Kehearing withdrawn (Nos. 48, 317) 133 Rehearing denied with one Justice dissenting (No. 217) 58 Rehearing granted (Nos. 481, 584, 726, 417, 707, 548, 353) 82, 193, 221, 253, 261, 267 Rehearing granted and judgment reversed without oral argu- ment. Later argued on petition of State of Texas for re- hearing and rehearing denied, with opinion (No. 87) 190, 220, 257, 259 Rehearing granted (No. 473). Writ had been dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it did not appear that decision of the highest court of the State (New York) did not rest upon an adequate nonfederal ground. Court of Appeals of New York amended remittitur on motion and judgment on remittitur was entered in New York Supreme Court. Sug- gesting that the jurisdictional defect had been supplied, peti- tioner moved for a rehearing 122, 149 Order suspending call of docket 233 Order fixing adjournment date 240 Final order 273 U. S. SOVERNHENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1940 ; MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 19 39 1 SUPEEME COUET OF THE UNITED STATES Present: The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice McReynolds, Mr. Justice Stone, Mr. Justice Roberts, Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Justice Frankfurter, and Mr. Justice Douglas. Francis M. Shea, of Buffalo, X. Y. ; Samuel O. Clark, Jr., of New York City Masaji Marumoto, of Honolulu, T. H. ; Ernest C. Lum, of ; Newark, N. J. ; Harve M. Duggins, of Knoxville, Tenn. ; William M. Kearney, of Reno, Nev. ; Hal Petty, of Knoxville, Tenn. ; A. Thur- man Ridley, of Knoxville, Tenn.; Everett L. Gordon, of Chicago, 111. Benjamin H. Matthews, of Chicago, HI. ; James P. Dillie, of ; Chicago, 111. ; Charles Emory Taintor, of Los Angeles, Calif. Joseph ; C. A^esely, of Hopkins, Minn. ; Robert M. C. Littler, of San Francisco, Calif. Dwight L. McCormack, of Dallas, Tex. Hayclen Covington, ; ; C. of San Antonio, Tex. ; Edward F. X. Ryan, of New York City Richard C. Goodspeed, of Los Angeles, Calif. ; Juan Nevares Santiago, of Fajardo, P. R. ; Prentice E. Eclrington, of Washington, D. C. Ruth Alberta Clark, of Miami Beach, Fla.; Curtis B. Camp, of Chicago, 111. George H. McWherter, of Greensburg, Pa. ; and Walter ; C. Hardesty, Jr., of Daytona Beach, Fla. ; were admitted to practice. No. 329. Henry Russell, Lawrence Miller, et al., etc., petitioners, V. James S. Todd, Joseph R. Work, et al., etc. Motion for leave to file brief as amicus curiae submitted by Mr. Henry Woog, and the motion denied. No. 10, original. The State of Texas, complainant, ^. The State of New Mexico et al. Final report submitted by Mr. Charles Warren, Special Master. No. original. Ex parte Northern Pacific Railroad Company^ — , petitioner. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamu& submitted by Mr. Raymond M. Hudson for the petitioner. No. — original. State of Oklahoma, upon the relation of Mac Q. , Williamson, Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, etc., com- plainant, V. Harry H. Woodring, Secretary of War of the United States. Motion for leave to file Bill of Complaint submitted by Mr. Mac Q. Williamson for the complainant. 181208—39 1 ; MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 19 3 9 2 No. 10, original, October Term 1935. The State of Wyoming, com- plaint, V. The State of Colorado. Motion for leave to file petition for rule to show cause submitted by Mr. James A. Greenwood and Mr. W. J. Wehrli for the complainant. No. 12. Royal Indemnity Company, petitioner, v. Woodbury Granite Company, Inc., et al. On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Dismissed per stipulation of counsel. No. 21. State of Florida, ex rel. William W. Yare, appellant, v. W. V. Knott, State Treasurer, etc. Suggestion of death of the party appellant submitted by Mr. Dean Acheson for the appellant. No. 22. State of Florida, ex rel. Hardware Mutual Casualty Com- pany et al., appellants, v. W. V. Knott, State Treasurer, etc. Mo- tion to vacate judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida submitted by Mr. Dean Acheson for the appellants. No. 89. John G. Getz, Jr., et al., petitioners, v. Edinburg Con- solidated Independent School District.
Recommended publications
  • Volume 59, Issue 1

    Volume 59, Issue 1

    Volume 60, Issue 4 Page 1023 Stanford Law Review THE SURPRISINGLY STRONGER CASE FOR THE LEGALITY OF THE NSA SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM: THE FDR PRECEDENT Neal Katyal & Richard Caplan © 2008 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, from the Stanford Law Review at 60 STAN. L. REV. 1023 (2008). For information visit http://lawreview.stanford.edu. THE SURPRISINGLY STRONGER CASE FOR THE LEGALITY OF THE NSA SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM: THE FDR PRECEDENT Neal Katyal* and Richard Caplan** INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1024 I. THE NSA CONTROVERSY .................................................................................1029 A. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act................................................1029 B. The NSA Program .....................................................................................1032 II. THE PRECURSOR TO THE FDR PRECEDENT: NARDONE I AND II........................1035 A. The 1934 Communications Act .................................................................1035 B. FDR’s Thirst for Intelligence ....................................................................1037 C. Nardone I...................................................................................................1041 D. Nardone II .................................................................................................1045 III. FDR’S DEFIANCE OF CONGRESS AND THE SUPREME COURT..........................1047 A. Attorney General
  • Election Division Presidential Electors Faqs and Roster of Electors, 1816

    Election Division Presidential Electors Faqs and Roster of Electors, 1816

    Election Division Presidential Electors FAQ Q1: How many presidential electors does Indiana have? What determines this number? Indiana currently has 11 presidential electors. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States provides that each state shall appoint a number of electors equal to the number of Senators or Representatives to which the state is entitled in Congress. Since Indiana has currently has 9 U.S. Representatives and 2 U.S. Senators, the state is entitled to 11 electors. Q2: What are the requirements to serve as a presidential elector in Indiana? The requirements are set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 provides that "no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment also states that "No person shall be... elector of President or Vice-President... who, having previously taken an oath... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. Congress may be a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." These requirements are included in state law at Indiana Code 3-8-1-6(b). Q3: How does a person become a candidate to be chosen as a presidential elector in Indiana? Three political parties (Democratic, Libertarian, and Republican) have their presidential and vice- presidential candidates placed on Indiana ballots after their party's national convention.
  • In Defence of the Court's Integrity

    In Defence of the Court's Integrity

    In Defence of the Court’s Integrity 17 In Defence of the Court’s Integrity: The Role of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in the Defeat of the Court-Packing Plan of 1937 Ryan Coates Honours, Durham University ‘No greater mistake can be made than to think that our institutions are fixed or may not be changed for the worse. We are a young nation and nothing can be taken for granted. If our institutions are maintained in their integrity, and if change shall mean improvement, it will be because the intelligent and the worthy constantly generate the motive power which, distributed over a thousand lines of communication, develops that appreciation of the standards of decency and justice which we have delighted to call the common sense of the American people.’ Hughes in 1909 ‘Our institutions were not designed to bring about uniformity of opinion; if they had been, we might well abandon hope.’ Hughes in 1925 ‘While what I am about to say would ordinarily be held in confidence, I feel that I am justified in revealing it in defence of the Court’s integrity.’ Hughes in the 1940s In early 1927, ten years before his intervention against the court-packing plan, Charles Evans Hughes, former Governor of New York, former Republican presidential candidate, former Secretary of State, and most significantly, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, delivered a series 18 history in the making vol. 3 no. 2 of lectures at his alma mater, Columbia University, on the subject of the Supreme Court.1 These lectures were published the following year as The Supreme Court: Its Foundation, Methods and Achievements (New York: Columbia University Press, 1928).
  • Philip Allen Lacovara

    Philip Allen Lacovara

    Arbitration Experience Philip Allen Chairman, sole arbitrator, or tribunal/panel member in arbitrations administered Lacovara by International Chamber of Commerce, London Court of International Arbitration, JAMS, International Centre for Dispute Resolution, American Arbitration Association, Netherlands Arbitration Institute, Swiss Chamber’s Arbitration Institution, and ad hoc arbitrations governed by Federal Arbitration Act, English Arbitration Act, etc. Independent Arbitrator Arbitral experience in matters including telecommunications, intellectual property, insurance and re-insurance, executive employment, construction, mining, heavy equipment manufacturing, aviation, licensing and distribution, pharmaceuticals, technology, partnership dissolution, mergers & acquisitions and earn outs, financial transactions, energy supply contracts, securities underwriting, etc. Mediation experience in matters involving financial services, securities, executive employment, technology licensing, contracting, franchise distribution, construction, insurance and reinsurance coverage, class actions, hedge funds, professional malpractice, etc. Professional Affiliations ▪ Fellow, The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (London). ▪ Fellow, College of Commercial Arbitrators ▪ Panel of International Arbitrators, International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) (international affiliate of American Arbitration Association). ▪ Chambers Band 1: Leading International Arbitrators. ▪ Member, London Court of International Arbitration. ▪ JAMS, The Resolution Experts:
  • The Importance of Dissent and the Imperative of Judicial Civility

    The Importance of Dissent and the Imperative of Judicial Civility

    Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 28 Number 2 Symposium on Civility and Judicial Ethics in the 1990s: Professionalism in the pp.583-646 Practice of Law Symposium on Civility and Judicial Ethics in the 1990s: Professionalism in the Practice of Law The Importance of Dissent and the Imperative of Judicial Civility Edward McGlynn Gaffney Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Edward McGlynn Gaffney Jr., The Importance of Dissent and the Imperative of Judicial Civility, 28 Val. U. L. Rev. 583 (1994). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol28/iss2/5 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Gaffney: The Importance of Dissent and the Imperative of Judicial Civility THE IMPORTANCE OF DISSENT AND THE IMPERATIVE OF JUDICIAL CIVILITY EDWARD McGLYNN GAFFNEY, JR.* A dissent in a court of last resort is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the errorinto which the dissentingjudge believes the court to have been betrayed... Independence does not mean cantankerousness and ajudge may be a strongjudge without being an impossibleperson. Nothing is more distressing on any bench than the exhibition of a captious, impatient, querulous spirit.' Charles Evans Hughes I. INTRODUCTION Charles Evans Hughes served as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court from 1910 to 1916 and as Chief Justice of the United States from 1930 to 1941.
  • American Trucking Associations V. Scheiner: Truckers Challenge Pennsylvania's Highway User Fees Under the Dormant Commerce Clause

    American Trucking Associations V. Scheiner: Truckers Challenge Pennsylvania's Highway User Fees Under the Dormant Commerce Clause

    University of Miami Law Review Volume 41 Number 5 Article 10 5-1-1987 American Trucking Associations v. Scheiner: Truckers Challenge Pennsylvania's Highway User Fees Under the Dormant Commerce Clause Robert J. Borrello Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Part of the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert J. Borrello, American Trucking Associations v. Scheiner: Truckers Challenge Pennsylvania's Highway User Fees Under the Dormant Commerce Clause, 41 U. Miami L. Rev. 1117 (1987) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol41/iss5/10 This Casenote is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CASENOTES American Trucking Associations v. Scheiner: Truckers Challenge Pennsylvania's Highway User Fees Under the Dormant Commerce Clause I. INTRODUCTION .. ....................................................... 1117 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................... 1119 III. THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE ...................................... 1121 A. The Axle Tax Discriminatesin Effect ................................ 1122 B. The Complementary Tax Doctrine ................................... 1124 1. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE COMPLEMENTARY TAX: ONE-SIDED TAX BURDEN .
  • Rare Books & Special Collections Tarlton Law Library University Of

    Rare Books & Special Collections Tarlton Law Library University Of

    Rare Books & Special Collections Tarlton Law Library University of Texas at Austin 727 E. 26th St., Austin, Texas 78705-3224 512/471-7263 SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS RESEARCH FILES, 1823-1955, Bulk 1860-1939 Inventory Date printed: SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS RESEARCH FILES Inventory Extent: 1.25 linear ft. (3 boxes). Frank, John P., 1917-2002- John P. Frank, a noted attorney and constitutional scholar, was born in 1917. He received his LL.B. at the University of Wisconsin, and his J.S.D. from Yale University. He was law clerk to Justice Hugo L. Black at the October, 1942 term, among other prominent positions. He taught law from 1946 to 1954 at Indiana and Yale Universities. He has authored 12 books on the Supreme Court, the Constitution and constitutional law. A senior partner with the Phoenix firm of Lewis and Roca, which he joined in 1954, Frank was lead counsel on the ground-breaking Miranda v. Arizona case, and served as counsel to Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. While serving on the Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure, Frank led a group that worked on drafting revisions to Rule 11 attorney sanctions. Frank also served from 1960 to 1970 on the Advisory Committee of Civil Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Scope and Content: The collection consists of research into U.S. Supreme Court nominations of the 19th and 20th centuries, and includes 8 inches of printed materials and 7 microfilm reels (35mm), 1823-1939 (bulk 1860-1939), collected by Frank, for a research project concerning Supreme Court nominations.
  • Chapman Law Review

    Chapman Law Review

    Chapman Law Review Volume 21 Board of Editors 2017–2018 Executive Board Editor-in-Chief LAUREN K. FITZPATRICK Managing Editor RYAN W. COOPER Senior Articles Editors Production Editor SUNEETA H. ISRANI MARISSA N. HAMILTON TAYLOR A. KENDZIERSKI CLARE M. WERNET Senior Notes & Comments Editor TAYLOR B. BROWN Senior Symposium Editor CINDY PARK Senior Submissions & Online Editor ALBERTO WILCHES –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Articles Editors ASHLEY C. ANDERSON KRISTEN N. KOVACICH ARLENE GALARZA STEVEN L. RIMMER NATALIE M. GAONA AMANDA M. SHAUGHNESSY-FORD ANAM A. JAVED DAMION M. YOUNG __________________________________________________________________ Staff Editors RAYMOND AUBELE AMY N. HUDACK JAMIE L. RICE CARLOS BACIO MEGAN A. LEE JAMIE L. TRAXLER HOPE C. BLAIN DANTE P. LOGIE BRANDON R. SALVATIERRA GEORGE E. BRIETIGAM DRAKE A. MIRSCH HANNAH B. STETSON KATHERINE A. BURGESS MARLENA MLYNARSKA SYDNEY L. WEST KYLEY S. CHELWICK NICHOLE N. MOVASSAGHI Faculty Advisor CELESTINE MCCONVILLE, Professor of Law CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY HAZEM H. CHEHABI ADMINISTRATION JEROME W. CWIERTNIA DALE E. FOWLER ’58 DANIELE C. STRUPPA BARRY GOLDFARB President STAN HARRELSON GAVIN S. HERBERT,JR. GLENN M. PFEIFFER WILLIAM K. HOOD Provost and Executive Vice ANDY HOROWITZ President for Academic Affairs MARK CHAPIN JOHNSON ’05 JENNIFER L. KELLER HAROLD W. HEWITT,JR. THOMAS E. MALLOY Executive Vice President and Chief SEBASTIAN PAUL MUSCO Operating Officer RICHARD MUTH (MBA ’05) JAMES J. PETERSON SHERYL A. BOURGEOIS HARRY S. RINKER Executive Vice President for JAMES B. ROSZAK University Advancement THE HONORABLE LORETTA SANCHEZ ’82 HELEN NORRIS MOHINDAR S. SANDHU Vice President and Chief RONALD M. SIMON Information Officer RONALD E. SODERLING KAREN R. WILKINSON ’69 THOMAS C. PIECHOTA DAVID W.
  • Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority Dist. V. Delta Airlines, Inc., 405 U.S

    Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority Dist. V. Delta Airlines, Inc., 405 U.S

    Florida State University Law Review Volume 1 Issue 2 Article 6 1973 Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority Dist. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 405 U.S. 707 (1972) Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority Dist. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 405 U.S. 707 (1972), 1 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 354 (1973) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol1/iss2/6 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FloridaState University Law Review [VOL 1 signals the judicial recognition in Florida of a valuable scientific de- vice which will aid in identifying the guilty while protecting the innocent.32 Constitutional Law - STATE TAXATION-AIRPORT USE TAXES IMPOSED ON DEPARTING COMMERCIAL AIRLINE PASSENGERS ONLY AS COMPEN- SATION FOR USE OF FACILITIES VIOLATE No FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.-Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority Dist. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 405 U.S. 707 (1972). The rapid increase in private and commercial aviation operations' has necessitated concomitant airport development and expansion. One method of generating funds for these purposes is the so-called air- port use tax. Prior to 1972, only Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey and an Indiana airport authority district had actually imposed such taxes. 2 With slight variations, the tax in each instance took the printed. In such a situation the voiceprint could be excluded as the "fruit" of a con- stitutionally impermissible seizure.
  • Abortion-From Privacy to Equality: the Failure of the Justifications for Taking Human Life

    Abortion-From Privacy to Equality: the Failure of the Justifications for Taking Human Life

    ESSAY ABORTION-FROM PRIVACY TO EQUALITY: THE FAILURE OF THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR TAKING HUMAN LIFE Robert John Araujo, S.J.° TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1738 II. EQUALITY RECONSIDERED .................................................. 1741 III. EQUALITY'S SOURCE- THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE .............................. 1744 IV. A CONTEMPORARY AND PROBLEMATIC UNDERSTANDING OF EQUALITY .......................................... 1745 V. EQUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF ABORTION "RIGHTS" CLAIMS-THE FOUNDATION OF RoE ................... 1747 VI. THE UNSATISFACTORY CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUM ENTS OF ROE ........................................................... 1754 VII. ROE AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT .......................... 1758 VIII. THE SEARCH FOR NEW CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS-CASEY ........................... 1763 IX. THE EMERGENCE OF THE EQUALITY ARGUMENT ................ 1766 * Visiting Professor of Law, Boston College. The Author would like to thank Professor Richard Myers for his valuable comments to an earlier draft of this Essay. The Author expresses his gratitude to the American College of Pediatricians for their kind permission to include their materials in the Appendix to this Essay. 1737 HeinOnline -- 45 Hous. L. Rev. 1737 2008-2009 1738 HOUSTON LAW REVIEW [45:5 X. EQUALITY COMES OF AGE IN THE CARHART CASES ............1772 XI. EQUALITY, YES-BUT EQUALITY FOR ALL .......................... 1779 X II. CONCLUSION ......................................................................
  • Celebrating the 200Th Anniversary of the Federal Courts of the District of Columbia

    Celebrating the 200Th Anniversary of the Federal Courts of the District of Columbia

    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2002 Celebrating the 200th Anniversary of the Federal Courts of the District of Columbia Susan Low Bloch Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1516 90 Geo. L.J. 549-605 (2002) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Courts Commons, and the Legal History Commons Celebrating the 200th Anniversary of the Federal Courts of the District of Columbia SUSAN Low BLOCH* AND RUTH BADER GINSBURG** INTRODUCTION February 27, 2001 marked the 200th anniversary of the federal courts of the District of Columbia, the courts we know today as the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The history of these courts is complex, and sometimes enigmatic. Their names changed no fewer than six times since their creation; for some thirty years, from 1863 until 1893, the two courts existed as one umbrella tribunal, named the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.' The courts' location in the nation's capital and their dual jurisdiction as both federal and local forums rendered the District of Columbia courts unique tribunals destined to make substantial contributions to American jurisprudence. This Essay describes the evolution of these courts from a three-judge circuit court with both trial and appellate jurisdiction to the two courts whose 200th anniversary we celebrated this past year.2 It then examines two main themes characteristic of these unique tribunals.
  • Abington School District V. Schempp 1 Ableman V. Booth 1 Abortion 2

    Abington School District V. Schempp 1 Ableman V. Booth 1 Abortion 2

    TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 Bill of Rights 66 Birth Control and Contraception 71 Abington School District v. Schempp 1 Hugo L. Black 73 Ableman v. Booth 1 Harry A. Blackmun 75 Abortion 2 John Blair, Jr. 77 Adamson v. California 8 Samuel Blatchford 78 Adarand Constructors v. Peña 8 Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell 79 Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 10 Bob Jones University v. United States 80 Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 13 Boerne v. Flores 81 Advisory Opinions 15 Bolling v. Sharpe 81 Affirmative Action 15 Bond v. United States 82 Afroyim v. Rusk 21 Boumediene v. Bush 83 Age Discrimination 22 Bowers v. Hardwick 84 Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 24 Boyd v. United States 86 Allgeyer v. Louisiana 26 Boy Scouts of America v. Dale 86 Americans with Disabilities Act 27 Joseph P. Bradley 87 Antitrust Law 29 Bradwell v. Illinois 89 Appellate Jurisdiction 33 Louis D. Brandeis 90 Argersinger v. Hamlin 36 Brandenburg v. Ohio 92 Arizona v. United States 36 William J. Brennan, Jr. 92 Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing David J. Brewer 96 Development Corporation 37 Stephen G. Breyer 97 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 38 Briefs 99 Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority 38 Bronson v. Kinzie 101 Assembly and Association, Freedom of 39 Henry B. Brown 101 Arizona v. Gant 42 Brown v. Board of Education 102 Atkins v. Virginia 43 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association 104 Automobile Searches 45 Brown v. Maryland 106 Brown v. Mississippi 106 Bad Tendency Test 46 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 107 Bail 47 Buchanan v.