The Selective Shield of Due Process: Analysis of the U.S. Department of Education's 2020 Title IX Regulations on Live Cross‐Examination

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 584-612
Author(s):  
Kathryn J. Holland ◽  
Nicole Bedera ◽  
Aliya R. Webermann
Keyword(s):  
Title Ix ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Process Analysis ◽  
The U.S

Recent Legal Developments: Criminal Justice Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, 2018 Term

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-170
Author(s):  
Craig Hemmens ◽  
Elizabeth Dotson ◽  
Mary Miller
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
The U.S

In this article, we review and analyze the criminal justice–related decisions of the 2018 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. We also provide a summary of the Court’s voting patterns and opinion authorship. Eighteen of the Court’s 72 decisions touched on criminal justice. There were significant decisions involving due process, sentencing, and federal criminal statutes. Each of these is discussed in turn.

Employment: Protecting Public Health Abrogates Due Process Requirement for Suspension Proceedings

2003 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-168
Author(s):  
Guillermo A. Montero
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Health Care Quality ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Memorial Hospital ◽  
District Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Health Care Quality Improvement ◽  
The U.S

In Patel v. Midland Memorial Hospital & Medical Center, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the defendant hospital did not violate the plaintiff's due process rights by suspending his clinical privileges without a pre-suspension hearing, where there were reasonable grounds for assuming that patient safety was at risk. Dr. P.V. Patel, a board-certified cardiologist, brought an action against Midland Memorial Hospital and several of its doctors, alleging that the suspension of his clinical privileges violated his right to a pre-suspension hearing; was the result of racial discrimination; and resulted in anticompetitive behavior in violation of antitrust laws. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted Midland's motion for summary judgment. The parties filed cross appeals, Dr. Patel on the ground that there were genuine issues of fact for all of his claims, and Midland on the ground that, with the exception of the civil rights claim, it was immune from all of Dr. Patel's claims under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (HCQIA).

Title Nau: The Impact of Title IX on Women's Education in the U.S. and What it Means for India

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-207
Author(s):  
Taylor Adams ◽  
Zihe Zhang ◽  
Rebecca Holmes ◽  
Pratik Shah
Keyword(s):  
Women's Education ◽  
Title Ix ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Supreme Court: Garcia V. Texas

2012 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-53
Author(s):  
David P. Stewart
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The U.S

On July 7, 2011, the United States Supreme Court declined to stay the execution of Humberto Leal García, a Mexican national who had been convicted some sixteen years ago in Texas of murder.1 Relying on the decision of the International Court of Justice (‘‘ICJ’’) in the Avena case,2 García contended that the United States had violated his right to consular notification and access under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (‘‘Consular Convention’’).3 He sought the stay so that the U.S. Congress could consider enactment of proposed legislation to implement the ICJ decision.4 In a 5-4 decision, the Court rejected his argument, stating that ‘‘[t]he Due Process Clause does not prohibit a State from carrying out a lawful judgment in light of unenacted legislation that might someday authorize a collateral attack on that judgment.’’5 García was executed by lethal injection that evening.

scholarly journals The Verdict of Five out of Six Civil Jurors: Constitutional Problems

1982 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Zeisel
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
State Constitution ◽  
The U.S

A criminal jury of fewer than 6 members and a jury in which 5 out of 6 can find a verdict were held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court for failing to meet the requirements of due process as mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment. In four states—Michigan is one of them—the 5 out of 6 jury is the standard civil jury. Two questions are raised: first, whether such a jury violates the Michigan state constitution; second, whether such a 5 out of 6 civil jury violates the federal Constitutiton even though the civil jury is not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document