Supreme Court Behavior in Racial Exclusion Cases: 1935–1960

1962 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 325-330
Author(s):  
S. Sidney Ulmer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Simple Procedure ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Racial Exclusion

The United States Supreme Court is often guided by rules of law which make the disposition of cases depend upon singular combinations of circumstances. It is a relatively simple procedure to go through the cases in a subject matter area and compile a list of the facts the justices seem to have considered material to their solution of the issue at hand. But the identification of the peculiar combinations of events which push the decisions in one direction or the other is more difficult. The number of possible combinations is almost endless: with as few as twenty specified circumstances there are more than one million possible combinations. And the weight of a particular circumstance may depend on the combination of factors in which it appears.Fred Kort has pointed to the “concrete differentiation of factual elements” which seem decisive in cases involving such procedural civil rights as protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, coerced confessions, and unfair trial procedures.

scholarly journals The Inventive Concept in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Burk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
European Patent ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
European Patent Convention ◽  
Patentable Subject Matter ◽  
Short Essay

In its recent patentable subject matter opinion in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, the United States Supreme Court articulated a two-step patent eligibility test that hinges on the presence of an "inventive concept" in the patent claims. This short essay considers the connection between the "inventive concept" requirement in the Alice Corp. test and the requirement of an "inventive step" or non-obviousness requirement for patentability, by relating the Supreme Court's holding to similar decisions considering patentable subject matter under the European Patent Convention.

scholarly journals It’s Not So Obvious

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 729-750
Author(s):  
Samuel Reger
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Patent Claim ◽  
Specific Approach ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Federal Circuit

Currently, the United States Supreme Court requires a fact-specific approach to determine whether a patent claim is eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, even though, traditionally, this has been considered a question of law. However, recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit introduced the “manifestly evident” standard. The court held that when it is not manifestly evident that a claim is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, then that claim must be deemed patent-eligible subject matter. This Comment suggests that the manifestly evident standard, or one similar to it, will reduce litigation costs. This is because, under the current fact-specific requirements, it may become commonplace for courts to engage in formal claim construction, a costly pre-trial process, to decide whether these requirements are met. But under the manifestly evident standard, courts and litigants will be able to quickly move past the often confusing section 101 to the later sections of the Patent Act, which courts are better prepared to confront.

The Diversion of Interstate Waters in the United States

1938 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 907-921
Author(s):  
James Simsarian
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Mexico ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Rio Grande ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
The Supreme Court

Two cases which are concerned with the diversion of the waters of interstate streams were before the United States Supreme Court in the October term of 1937. One of them, Texas v. New Mexico, will be withdrawn from the Court docket when the Rio Grande compact signed by representatives of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas and a representative of the United States on March 18,1938, enters into effect. The other case, Nebraska v. Wyoming and Colorado, was first argued before the Supreme Court in 1935. In May, 1938, the Court granted the petition of the United States for permission to intervene. Further written briefs and oral arguments were to be considered by the Court when the fall term of 1938 opened.

scholarly journals Forward—Police Misconduct and Kibbe v. City of Springfield

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harris Freeman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Police Officer ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Police Misconduct ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Racial Justice ◽  
The Law

Published: Harris Freeman, Forward—Police Misconduct and Kibbe v. City of Springfield, 40 W. NEW ENG. L. REV. 393 (2018). The Law Review’s 2017 symposium, “Perspectives on Racial Justice in the Era of #BlackLivesMatter,” appropriately opened with a panel that addressed the ongoing challenge of combatting police misconduct, as seen through the lens of Kibbe v. City of Springfield, a civil rights case that unfolded in Western Massachusetts and reached the United States Supreme Court thirty years ago. Kibbe presented the Court with the question of what the proper standard of liability should be for a municipality accused of a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for inadequately training a police officer who violates a person’s civil rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document