Nouvelles.droit.org

🕒
RSS JSON
media expectations that more patient privilege grant taking amendment are climate court use social made first fair circuit offs owner’s right supreme miranda speech act with since can regulation users land one campbell
9 Résultats (1 - 9)
A First Amendment Right to Know (Cornell Law Review)
: This Article tackles an increasingly important question: Can police round up people on American streets and keep secret the names of those they detain without violating the First Amendment? Alarmingly, the government made this very argument in the summer of 2020 when it sought to break up Black Lives Matter protests occurring in cities
Social Network as Work: A Labor Paradigm for Regulating Speech on Social Media (Cornell Law Review)
: Social media has eluded regulation by taking refuge in the First Amendment. The First Amendment, scholars and lawmakers overwhelmingly argue, is a formidable obstacle to regulation because social media facilitates the creation and exchange of speech by users. The received wisdom, therefore, characterizes users as consumers of a speech-related service, which inevitably does raise
One-Offs (Cornell Law Review)
: This Article examines the phenomenon of ''œone-offs'': court opinions that are rarely cited by the court that issued them and do not explicitly generate further doctrinal development. At first glance, one might think that such opinions are problematic outputs from an apex court such as the U.S. Supreme Court, whose primary tasks are the
Dead Infants and Taking the Fifth (Cornell Law Review)
: This Essay offers tribute to Professor Colb’s teachings and insights expressed in her writings on the Court’s Miranda and Self-Incrimination Clause rulings. Since the start of the twenty-first century, Professor Colb wrote many blogs on the Court’s Miranda doctrine. Miranda v. Arizona famously held that persons under arrest must be warned of their right
#Landback to Indigenous Peoples from “Land-Grab” Universities (Cornell Law Review)
: The Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 (Morrill Act) was the first federal legislation to fund public higher education in the United States, funding fifty-two land-grant universities (LGUs) that still exist today. While the purpose of the Act was to “democratiz[e] . . . education” focusing on the study of agriculture and mechanical arts,
Campbell At 30: A Retrospective Appreciation (Cornell Law Review)
: This Article traces the intellectual history of copyright law’s fair use doctrine at the Supreme Court from its first encounter with fair use to its landmark decision slightly more than three decades ago in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Campbell provided courts with a coherent, user-centered theory for applying the four statutory fair use
Takings and Homeowners’ Expectations in Times of Rapid Climate Change (Cornell Law Review)
: This Note argues that courts should give more weight to climate change when assessing the reasonable investment-backed expectations that define the owner’s property interest. First, the owner’s expectations should be viewed dynamically, evolving over time, because government regulations—climate and disaster controls in particular—must also respond to changing circumstances. Currently, expectations are fixed at the
An Empirical Examination of the Dangerous Patient Exception (Cornell Law Review)
: This Article empirically examines the effect of the dangerous patient exception to the psychotherapist-patient evidentiary privilege. The U.S. Supreme Court first recognized the psychotherapist-patient privilege in Jaffee v. Redmond. This evidentiary privilege prevents mental health professionals from testifying about confidential statements made by patients for the purposes of treatment. Since Jaffee, federal circuit courts
A Common Law for the Age of Amici: How the Party-Presentation Principle Can Help Identify Binding Precedent (Cornell Law Review)
: Two recent Supreme Court cases suggest an additional dimension for the traditional test that distinguishes dicta from holding. In the first, United States v. Sineneng-Smith, the Ninth Circuit reversed a criminal conviction based on arguments made by amici appointed by that court. The Supreme Court then reversed 9-0, holding that the Ninth Circuit'''s handling