scholarly journals «Den sletteste, den nedrigste og uretfærdigste Embeds Mand» Om prosessen mot byfogd og politimester i Christiansand Mauritz Antonius Schweder

2020 ◽  
Vol 107 (3) ◽  
pp. 233-249
Author(s):  
Geir Heivoll
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal History ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Chiefs Of Police ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Many ◽  
The City

AbstractThe first Norwegian Chiefs of Police were appointed in the four main cities during the latter part of the 1600s. The first office was established in Trondheim in 1686, then Bergen in 1692, Christiania in 1744, and finally Christiansand in 1767. This article deals with the establishment of the police in Christiansand, when Christian VII appointed Mauritz Antonius Schweder Chief of Police in the city. Schweder had already been appointed as a bailiff in Christiansand in 1764, and from 1767 he was both bailiff and Chief of Police. But Schweder’s time in office was a turbulent one, and the conflict surrounding his office escalated so much as to finally end in the retraction of his professional appointment by the Supreme  Court in Copenhagen. This article focuses on the trial against Schweder: the many accusations against him, his defense, and the ruling of the Supreme Court, thereby shedding light on a lesser known part of the legal history of the early Norwegian Police.

Corporate Democracy: How Corporations Justified Their Right to Speak in 1970s Boston

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 943-992 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolas Bowie
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Legal History ◽  
Income Taxes ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Modern Business ◽  
History Of ◽  
National Bank ◽  
First Time ◽  
The City

AbstractIn the early 1970s, the executives of the First National Bank of Boston spent hundreds of thousands of the bank's dollars on ads opposing statewide efforts to raise their personal income taxes. When frustrated Massachusetts legislators banned this sort of corporate spending, the executives sued, arguing that “corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals.” In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Supreme Court held for the first time that the First Amendment protects all political speech, even ads paid for by a corporation. Surprisingly, the first corporation to take advantage of this decision was not the bank, but the city of Boston--a municipal corporation that spent nearly a million dollars on a new referendum in the fall of 1978.This article discusses the history of the 1978 referendum, one pitting municipal corporations against business corporations. It argues that the referendum and the discourse surrounding it made it intuitive for Bostonians that all corporations, banks and cities, are representative institutions. Corporations can “speak” only by spending money, and the leaders of Boston and the bank justified spending other people's money by pointing to the internal elections that put them in office. But voters were skeptical of the argument that “corporate democracy” alone could guarantee that elected executives spoke with the consent of the people they purported to represent. The article offers a novel contribution to the historiography of modern business and politics: a legal history of how corporations--municipal and financial--became politicized in the wake of evolving First Amendment free-speech doctrine.

scholarly journals The Action for Breach of Promise of Marriage in Early Colonial New Zealand: Fitzgerald v Clifford (1846)

2010 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 473
Author(s):  
Megan Simpson
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal History ◽  
Public Debate ◽  
Early Colonial ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
Insight Into

In 1846, the first breach of promise of marriage case was heard by the Supreme Court of New Zealand. Unlike many other breach of promise cases heard throughout the Empire during the nineteenth century, this case was not publicly reported. Rather, it is a case that exists only within the pages of Justice Chapman's judicial notebook, absent from the newspaper court reports of the time. This action was relatively rare in the colony but the testimonies of witnesses examined enable us to gain an insight into matters of class, courtship, family, reputation and social protocols in the mid-nineteenth century. This paper considers the legal history of the action in New Zealand from 1842-1875, focussing on the case of Fitzgerald v Clifford (1846) to explore how private matters of courtship and romance became matters of legal and sometimes public debate. 

Video as Text/Archive

2019 ◽  
pp. 778-797
Author(s):  
Bennett Capers
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Case ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Surveillance Cameras ◽  
American Law ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
History Of ◽  
Constitutional Protections

This chapter focuses on a few issues related to video evidence and law, especially with respect to American law. The first issue is the history of the use of video evidence in court. The second issue involves constitutional protections regarding the state’s use of surveillance cameras. The chapter then turns to the Supreme Court case Scott v. Harris to raise concerns about the use of video evidence as not just proof but “truth.” These are of course just a sampling of the issues that the topic of video evidence could raise. The hope is that this chapter will spur further inquiry on the part of the reader.

Roe v. Wade and the History of Abortion Regulation

1989 ◽  
Vol 15 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 227-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Benjamin Linton
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Personal Privacy ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
Personal Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Right Of Privacy ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Right Of Privacy ◽  
The Right ◽  
Roe V Wade

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court held that “[the] right of privacy … founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty … is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” The Court acknowledged that “[t]he Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.” Nevertheless, the Court held that a “right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.” However, “only personal rights that can be deemed ‘fundamental’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ … are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.”

The tenure of English judges

1913 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. H. McIlwain
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
General Object ◽  
William Iii ◽  
Science Association

At the meeting of the Political Science Association last year, in the general discussion, on the subject of the recall, I was surprised and I must admit, a little shocked to hear our recall of judges compared to the English removal of judges on address of the houses of parliament.If we must compare unlike things, rather than place the recall beside the theory or the practice of the joint address, I should even prefer to compare it to a bill of attainder.In history, theory and practice the recall as we have it and the English removal by joint address have hardly anything in common, save the same general object.Though I may not (as I do not) believe in the recall of judges, this paper concerns itself not at all with that opinion, but only with the history and nature of the tenure of English judges, particularly as affected by the possibility of removal on address. I believe a study of that history will show that any attempt to force the address into a close resemblance to the recall, whether for the purpose of furthering or of discrediting the latter, is utterly misleading.In the history of the tenure of English judges the act of 12 and 13 William III, subsequently known as the Act of Settlement, is the greatest landmark. The history of the tenure naturally divides into two parts at the year 1711. In dealing with both parts, for the sake of brevity, I shall confine myself strictly to the judges who compose what since 1873 has been known as the supreme court of judicature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document