A Professional Pioneer: Myra Bradwell's Fight to Practice Law

1987 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy T. Gilliam
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Sex Discrimination ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
First Case ◽  
The Right

In April of 1873, the United States Supreme Court rejected Myra Bradwell's claim that the right to practice law should be acknowledged as one of the privileges and immunities of United States citizenship. Thus, the first case of sex discrimination to be heard by the Court was resolved against the woman, as would be every subsequent claim but one for the next ninety-eight years.

II. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT SETTLES THE NE EXEAT CONTROVERSY IN AMERICA: ABBOTT v ABBOTT

2010 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 1158-1167
Author(s):  
James D Garbolino
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Child Abduction ◽  
First Case ◽  
Bundle Of Rights ◽  
Definition Of

In a 6–3 opinion the United States Supreme Court held, in its first case involving the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction2, that a ne exeat3 order confers a right of custody for a left behind parent, entitling that parent to maintain an action under the Convention. The decision reverses a 5th Circuit opinion4 which followed the rationale of CrollvCroll.5Croll held that a parent with visitation rights, coupled with a ne exeat clause, possessed only part of the ‘bundle of rights’6 which comprise ‘rights of custody’, and that such limited rights were insufficient to compel a return remedy under the 1980 Convention. The Supreme Court's decision settles a conflict among the federal circuits on this issue.7 Following the Croll rationale were Fawcett v. McRoberts,8 and Gonzales v Gutierrez.9 The 11th Circuit, however, in Furnes v. Reeves,10 held that a ne exeat provision in a Norwegian custody agreement conferred a right which would satisfy the Convention's definition of ‘custody rights’.

Preserving Liberty While Combatting Terrorism: An American Experience

2003 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-131
Author(s):  
Steven R. Shapiro
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Pearl Harbor ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Martial Law ◽  
American Experience ◽  
The Right

In 1946, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the declaration of martial law in Hawaii following Pearl Harbor did not suspend the Bill of Rights and did not deprive civilians accused of crime of the right to trial by jury in a civilian rather than a military court. In a concurring opinion, Justice Frank Murphy wrote.

The Supreme Court and Its Critics: Is the Court Moving Left?

1959 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 495-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph O. Losos
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
American People ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Right

InTheLight of recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court, it might appear that the judiciary is currently the most radical branch of the Federal Government. In certain respects circumstances today, present a scene similar to that of 1937. The Court, now as then, is denounced as an unelected, undemocratic group which, under the pretense of interpreting the laws and Constitution, makes a law contrary to the will of the majority of the American people. Only today it is the right that denounces the Court and the left that comes to its defense.

United States Supreme Court and Psychiatry: A Critical Look

1985 ◽  
Vol 13 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 137-164
Author(s):  
Carl P. Malmquist
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Psychiatric Treatment ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Health Law ◽  
Health Issues ◽  
The Right

The entrance of the United States Supreme Court into the field of mental health law in the last decade has been seen by some as heralding a commitment of the Court to mental health issues. A review of key cases reveals a disjointed approach to the issues with an ambivalence and inconsistency in the viewpoint taken toward the role and efficacy of psychiatry. While some cases have emphasized individual rights, such as incompetency issues, and a newly created right to psychiatric assistance at trial for indigents, other cases have refused to give psychiatric treatment centers the right to administer treatment without at least administrative if not judicial supervision. The cases reveal the lack of an overall jurisprudential viewpoint, and perhaps even a trend to return to the level of letting each state go its own way.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document