Legally Noted

• Home
• Features
• Get Started
• Attractive Nuisance
• Answer Board
• Groups
• Blog
• RSS

→ Notes

Total results found 47

   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>

Constitutional Law I Test Checklist

Federal Legislative Power, McCulloch v. Maryland, Sources of Congressional authority, Article I, section 8—18 clauses enumerating specific powers of Congress, Reconstruction Amendments: 13, 14, 15, Out of all these powers, Commerce Clause is the most important, Consider separation of powers, Federalism, scope of congressional authority, compact clause, Gibbons v. Ogden, Dual federalism,10th Amendment, Hammer v. Dagenhart, Champion v. Ames, New Deal Era, NLRB, United States v. Darby, Wickard v. Filburn, The Test for the Commerce Clause after 1937, Regulatory Laws, Civil Rights Laws, Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States of America, Katzenbach v. McClung, Mann Act—makes it a crime to take a woman across state lines for immoral purposes (Caminetti), Perez v. United States, United States v. Lopez, channels of interstate commerce, Heart of Atlanta Motel, “regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce”, substantial relation to interstate commerce, Dormant Commerce Clause, Cooley, Groves v. Slaughter, Prigg v. Pennslyvania, Dred Scott v. Sanford, Brig Amy Warwick (Prize cases), THE TAXING AND SPENDING POWER, Butler, Steward Machine Co. v. Davis Social Security Act, Taxing power, Regulatory and Revenue Raising Taxes, Spending power, Delegate

College/University: The John Marshall Law School--Chicago

Date Added: 01 April 2009

0.0

0 Vote(s)

PanHandle Pipe Line v. Smith

Contract Law Briefs

College/University: The John Marshall Law School--Chicago

Date Added: 26 August 2009

0.0

0 Vote(s)

PanHandle Pipe Line v. Smith

Contract Law Briefs

College/University: The John Marshall Law School--Chicago

Date Added: 26 August 2009

0.0

0 Vote(s)

Constitutional Law Short Outline of casebriefs

Excellent synopsis of all important cases and topics including: Plessy: Upheld separate but equal railway passenger cars, 14th protects political, not social – no badge of inferiority here Brown: Held separate educational activities are inherently unequal, creates a badge of inferiority; the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal deprives the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities Loving: There is a fundamental right to marry because it has long been recognized (tradition) as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men Korematsu: Upheld the relocation of Jap-Americans. All legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect, but not necessarily unconst. They are subject to strict scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions and here it does because of the threat of Japanese attack Hernandez: Invalidated law that was neutral on its face, but in application excluded Mexicans from jury service in all 25 years; minorities don’t need proportionate representation, but they can’t be systematically excluded Richmond: Held that strict scrutiny should be used in evaluating state and local affirmative action programs. Ct invalidated a Richmond, Virginia plan to set aside 30% of public works monies for minority owned businesses – not narrowly tailored because the plan did not identify the specific need for remedial action Grutter: Upheld Michigan Law School policy of using race as a plus factor in admission of students to promote diversity; the Equal Protection Clause did not prohibit this narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further the school's compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefit of diversity Gratz; Johnson; Frontiero; Craig; VMI; Miller; Feeney; Yick Wo; Davis; Arlington Heights; Cleburne; Slaughterhouse; Lochner; West Coast Hotel; Meyer; Pierce; Griswold; Troxel; Roe; Planned Parenthood; Bowers; Lawrence; Goldberg; Roth; Matthews v. Eldridgw; DeShaney; Boddie; Kras; Rodriguez; MLB; New York Times v. US; Ashcroft; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire; O’Brien; Texas v. Johnson; Moseley; Ward

College/University: The John Marshall Law School--Chicago

Date Added: 14 September 2009

0.0

0 Vote(s)

Constitutional Law II Finals 2 page study sheet

Excellent synopsis of all important cases and topics including: Plessy: Upheld separate but equal railway passenger cars, 14th protects political, not social – no badge of inferiority here Brown: Held separate educational activities are inherently unequal, creates a badge of inferiority; the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal deprives the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities Loving: There is a fundamental right to marry because it has long been recognized (tradition) as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men Korematsu: Upheld the relocation of Jap-Americans. All legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect, but not necessarily unconst. They are subject to strict scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions and here it does because of the threat of Japanese attack Hernandez: Invalidated law that was neutral on its face, but in application excluded Mexicans from jury service in all 25 years; minorities don’t need proportionate representation, but they can’t be systematically excluded Richmond: Held that strict scrutiny should be used in evaluating state and local affirmative action programs. Ct invalidated a Richmond, Virginia plan to set aside 30% of public works monies for minority owned businesses – not narrowly tailored because the plan did not identify the specific need for remedial action Grutter: Upheld Michigan Law School policy of using race as a plus factor in admission of students to promote diversity; the Equal Protection Clause did not prohibit this narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further the school's compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefit of diversity Gratz; Johnson; Frontiero; Craig; VMI; Miller; Feeney; Yick Wo; Davis; Arlington Heights; Cleburne; Slaughterhouse; Lochner; West Coast Hotel; Meyer; Pierce; Griswold; Troxel; Roe; Planned Parenthood; Bowers; Lawrence; Goldberg; Roth; Matthews v. Eldridgw; DeShaney; Boddie; Kras; Rodriguez; MLB; New York Times v. US; Ashcroft; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire; O’Brien; Texas v. Johnson; Moseley; Ward

College/University: The John Marshall Law School--Chicago

Date Added: 14 September 2009

0.0

0 Vote(s)