Mendeley出力
＜図書＞
The Supreme Court Review
| 責任表示 | edited by Philip B. Kurland |
|---|---|
| データ種別 | 図書 |
| 出版情報 | Chicago : University of Chicago Press , 1960- |
| 本文言語 | 英語 |
| 大きさ | v. ; 25 cm |
| 概要 | A record of Supreme Court decisions for the year of 1970. The Supreme Court is likely to be a sadly debilitated institution for some time to come. For history has made it clear that great Justices are...made not born; that experience on the Supreme Court is itself a necessary though not a sufficient condition for judicial eminence; that it takes time for any new appointee, however vast his prior judicial experience, to meet the extraordinary challenges that inhere in the job. A government of laws represents a singular achievement of men, while the Supreme Court's practice of judicial review is a unique manifestation of the rule of law. On the whole it has been successful in providing legal resolution for a significant area of political controversy and in elevating the quality of American political life. This is a book of supreme court rulings in the year 1974. This is a book of supreme court rulings in the year 1981. This book contains Supreme Court cases from the year 1982. This is a book of supreme court rulings in the year 1983. In Memphis, Firefighter v. Scotts, the Supreme Court finally addressed the question whether a judge may impose radical quotas as a remedy for employment discrimination. The issue arose in the especially troublesome context of layoffs and demotions, in which the court was asked to allocate the burden of recession and fiscal austerity between senior white and junior black employees. The Court might have confined its inquiry to this particularly thorny problem. This book is about cases reviewed by the Supreme Court in 1985. In two opinions last term, the Supreme Court rewrote the lay of free exercise. In Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization, the Court held that the dissemination of religious messages may be taxed under generally applicable laws. Since it first appeared in 1960, the "Supreme Court Review" has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad journalism; Paul Finkelman on "Prigg v. Pennsylvania"; Richard H. Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses. Since it first appeared in 1960, the "Supreme Court Review" has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad journalism; Paul Finkelman on "Prigg v. Pennsylvania"; Richard H. Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses. Since it first appeared in 1960, the "Supreme Court Review" has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad journalism; Paul Finkelman on "Prigg v. Pennsylvania"; Richard H. Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses. Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Consisting of diverse essays by distinguished lawyers, historians, and social scientists, each volume presents informed analyses of past and present opinions and discusses important public law issues that have come under Court consideration. Skeptical Scrutiny of Plenary Power: Judicial and Executive Branch Decision Making in Miller v. AlbrightCornelia T.L. Pillard and T. Alexander Aleinikoff The New Etiquette of Federalism: New York, Printz, and YeskeyMatthew Adler and Seth KreimerThe McCleskey Puzzle: Remedying Prosecutorial Discrimination Against Black Victims in Capital SentencingEvan Tsen Lee and Ashutosh Bhagwat State Taxation and the Dormant Commerce Clause: The Object-Measure ApproachJesse H. Choper and Tung YinLight on a Darkling Plain: Intercircuit Conflicts in the Perspective of Time and ExperienceArthur D. HellmanThe Plessy EraMichael J Klarman "Some of the best researched and most thoughtful criticisms of recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court."--Ethics Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Consisting of diverse essays by distinguished lawyers, historians, and social scientists, each volume presents informed analyses of past and present opinions and discusses important public law issues that have come under Court consideration. "Some of the best researched and most thoughtful criticism of recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court."--"Ethics" "The Supreme Court Review" keeps you at the forefront of the Court's most significant decisions by surveying its origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law and compelling you to consider the impacts of legal institutions and judicial opinion. Diverse essays of informed analyses of past and present opinions document the complexities of the Court and relevant public law issues. Legal scholars, lawyers, judges, historians, political scientists, economists, and journalists have won acclaim for their contributions to each volume. Since it first appeared in 1960, "The Supreme Court Review" has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Consisting of diverse essays by distinguished lawyers, historians, and social scientists, each volume presents informed analyses of past and present opinions and discusses important public law issues that have come under Court consideration. Since its inception in 1960, "The Supreme Court Review" has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions. Recent volumes have considered issues such as the 2000 elections in Florida, Federalism and state sovereignty, the Boerne v. Flores case, and numerous Fourth Amendment issues. Distinguished participants analyze current and previous public issues, sentiments, and the implications of Court decisions. "The Supreme Court Review" receives accolades for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions and their resonating impacts. Recent scholarship addresses school vouchers via Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, Federalism and state sovereignty, the current state of political parties, and judicial passivity. Distinguished participants across the field of Law analyze current and previous public issues, sentiments, and implications addressed under Court consideration. Since its inception in 1960, "The Supreme Court Review" has been lauded for providing authoritative discussions of the Court's most significant decisions. Distinguished participants hereanalyze current and previous public issues and sentiments and discuss the implications of court decisions. For forty-five years "The Supreme Court Review "has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions. Recent volumes have considered issues such as the 2000 presidential election, cross-burning, federalism and state sovereignty, the "United States v. American Library Association" case, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases. Distinguished participants analyze current and previous concerns and attitudes and discuss the implications of court decisions. For forty-five years "The Supreme Court Review "has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions. Recent volumes have considered issues such as the 2000 presidential election, cross-burning, federalism and state sovereignty, the "United States v. American Library Association" case, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases. For forty-five years, "The Supreme Court Review "has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions. Recent volumes have considered such issues as the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, the "United States v. American Library Association" case, failed Supreme Court nominations, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases. For forty-eight years, "The Supreme Court Review "has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions. The" Review" is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, at the forefront of studies of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, the "United States v. American Library Association "case, failed Supreme Court nominations, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases. 続きを見る |
所蔵情報
| 状態 | 巻次 | 所蔵場所 | 請求記号 | 刷年 | 文庫名称 | 資料番号 | コメント | 予約・取寄 | 複写申込 | 自動書庫 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
1965 | 中央図 4B | 327.12/Su 75/(65) | 1967 |
|
068582480060932 |
|
|||
|
|
1966 | 中央図 4B | 327.12/Su 75/(66) | 1966 |
|
068582480060944 |
|
|||
|
|
1978 | 中央図 4B | 327.12/Su 75/(78) | 1979 |
|
068582480060956 |
|
書誌詳細
| 一般注記 | At head of title: The Law School, The University of Chicago Vol. 1977-: edited by Philip B. Kurland and Gerhard Casper -- v. 1981-: edited by Philip B. Kurland, Gerhard Casper and Dennis J. Hutchinson -- v. 1989: edited by Gerhard Casper and Dennis J. Hutchinson -- v. 1990: edited by Gerhard Casper, Dennis J. Hutchinson and David A. Strauss Vol. 1991-: edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss and Geoffrey R. Stone |
|---|---|
| 著者標目 | Kurland, Philip B. Casper, Gerhard Hutchinson, Dennis J. Strauss, David A. Stone, Geoffrey R. |
| 件 名 | NDLSH:最高裁判所 |
| 分 類 | NDC8:327.122 |
| 書誌ID | 1000498850 |
| ISBN | 0226464210 |
| NCID | BA0103735X |
| 巻冊次 | 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 ; ISBN:0226464210 1971 ; ISBN:0226464229 1972 ; ISBN:0226464237 1973 ; ISBN:0226464245 1974 ; ISBN:0226464253 1975 ; ISBN:0226464261 1976 ; ISBN:0226464288 1977 ; ISBN:0226464296 1978 ; ISBN:0226464318 1979 ; ISBN:0226464326 1980 ; ISBN:0226464334 1981 ; ISBN:0226464342 1982 ; ISBN:0226464350 1983 ; ISBN:0226464369 1984 ; ISBN:0226464377 1985 ; ISBN:0226464385 1986 ; ISBN:0226464393 1987 ; ISBN:0226464407 1988 ; ISBN:0226464415 1989 ; ISBN:0226095711 1990 ; ISBN:0226095738 1991 ; ISBN:0226095746 1992 ; ISBN:0226362477 1993 ; ISBN:0226362485 1994 ; ISBN:0226363112 1995 ; ISBN:0226363120 1996 ; ISBN:0226363139 1997 ; ISBN:0226363147 1998 ; ISBN:0226363163 1999 ; ISBN:0226363171 2000 ; ISBN:0226362493 2001 ; ISBN:0226362507 2002 ; ISBN:0226363198 2003 ; ISBN:0226363201 2004 ; ISBN:0226363236 2005 ; ISBN:0226362515 2006 ; ISBN:0226363252 ; XISBN:9780226363257 2007 ; ISBN:9780226362526 2008 ; ISBN:9780226362533 |
| 登録日 | 2009.09.14 |
| 更新日 | 2009.09.14 |