scholarly journals After Malcolm v. Superior Court and Peery v. Superior Court: A Due Process Analysis of California Lis Pendens

1982 ◽  
Vol 70 (4) ◽  
pp. 909 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie L. Castle
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Process Analysis

Formalism and Pragmatism in Criminal Procedure

2018 ◽  
pp. 182-219
Author(s):  
Vincent Chiao
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Process Analysis ◽  
Capabilities Approach ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Criminal Charges ◽  
Subjective Utility ◽  
The Law ◽  
Procedural Rights

Many jurisdictions define a special procedural regime for people facing “criminal” charges; hence, whether a case is considered “civil” or “criminal” can have important consequences for access to a wide array of procedural rights. Conventionally, the distinction between “civil” and “criminal” law is drawn by reference to whether the law in question is intended to be punitive. This chapter explores an alternative approach. Drawing upon the capabilities approach literature, this chapter develops an account of the allocation of procedural rights on the basis of whether the law in question has the potential to impair effective access to central capability. The appeal of the capabilities approach is contrasted to Kolber’s proposal to index punishment by reference to subjective utility or preference. Although appeal to capabilities is novel in this context, well-known features of due process analysis in American constitutional law are broadly consistent with a capabilities-based approach to rights allocation.

The Immutability of (Homo)Sexual Orientation: Behavioral Science Implications for a Constitutional (Legal) Analysis

1988 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 537-575 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Green
Keyword(s):  
Research Evidence ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Behavioral Science ◽  
Process Analysis ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Equal Protection Clause ◽  
Sexual Reorientation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Psychiatric Intervention

The Supreme Court ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick that there is no fundamental right under a substantive due process analysis to engage in homosexual behavior. Therefore, the remaining constitutional route to protecting homosexuals against discrimination is the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. For the highest level of protection there, a class of persons must be declared “suspect. ” To so qualify, the class should demonstrate, inter alia, that the trait for which it is stigmatized is immutable. Crowing research evidence exists for an innate origin of homosexuality. More importantly, whatever its origins, the low rate of sexual reorientation via psychiatric intervention satisfies the concept of immutability. The Court's criteria are met for applying the strictest of scrutiny to laws that discriminate against homosexuals.

Due Process: No-Win System

ASHA Leader ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (17) ◽  
pp. 18-20
Author(s):  
Susan Boswell
Keyword(s):  
Due Process

Dysphagia Services in Schools: Applying Special Education Requirements to a Health Service

2009 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 86-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lissa Power-deFur
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Due Process Hearings ◽  
Related Services ◽  
Eligibility Determination ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Provision Of Services ◽  
Related Service ◽  
Specially Designed Instruction

Abstract School speech-language pathologists and districts frequently need guidance regarding how the legal provisions of special education affect the needs of children with dysphagia. This article reviews key principles of special education that guide eligibility determination and provision of services to all children. In the eligibility process, the school team would determine if the child's disability has an adverse effect on his/her education program and if the child needed special education (specially designed instruction) and related services. Dysphagia services would be considered a related service, a health service needed for the child to benefit from specially designed instruction. The article concludes with recommendations for practice that stem from a review of due process hearings and court cases for children with disabilities that include swallowing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document