This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The New York Times is reporting that a Rutgers Law Professor and law student are under fire after the student reluctantly read the n-word in a 1993 legal opinion. It is the latest such controversy in high education. I am assuming that the professor and students were discussing State v.
There is an interesting case out of Kansas where an alleged rape victim has used a 134-year-old law to seek her own grand jury after prosecutors reached a plea bargain with the alleged attacker. Notably, this attack occurred when the courts were conducting a major review of this law.
I have been a vocal critic of Feres for decades and wrote a three-part study of the military legal system 20 years ago that detailed how this doctrine began in 1950 with a clearly erroneous reading of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The West Point case shows the legal lunacy and lethality of this doctrine.
Kansas Gov. But they also involve the very legal questions addressed in past Supreme Court cases, including Gonzales v. While Kessler focused on whether late-term abortions are “common,” the issue is whether a woman has a constitutional right to late-term abortions. Indeed, a majority supports limits on abortion after 15 weeks.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content