Landmark Case Research Articles

Women Prison Inmates &Their Children at Bachha Barrack During Pandemic Covid 19

In view of the successive directions issued by the Supreme Court (SC) in the recent landmark case of “Re inhuman conditions in 1382 Prison” court has identified emerging trend of increasing number, vulnerable condition of women prison inmates and their children in prisons across India. “An estimated number of 1,320 children are living with the mother women prison inmates including under trials, convicts. “The number of women inmates in Indian prisons increased upto 11.3%, in a span of few years from 2011 to 2015, Roughly 1,817 children are found living in prisons with their mothers as on the year 2014 across different prison in the country”. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Empowerment of Women (submitted its report on ‘Women in Detention and Access to Justice’ 2017 reiterated the issues concerning women inmates and their children. In keeping with these, certain landmark legal, regulatory, judicial directives exist to safeguard the interest of women inmates and their children. However in Pandemic Covid 19, the condition of bachha barrack remains extremely vulnerable children of women inmates. Due to overcrowding, the covid 19 pandemic makes it difficult for covid safety protocols to be followed. The existing condition of diet, medicines, education of children remains suspended during pandemic Covid 19.

James Obergefell Honored at John Fryer Anniversary Event

James Obergefell Honored at John Fryer Anniversary Event

The Right to Privacy, Its Progress & Decline: A Critical Review

Purpose: This article is aimed to analyze the different Philosophical and legal perspectives of privacy in the United States with reference to a few landmark cases in the U.S. My debate will cover different situations, views, and laws in the US, the EU, and Pakistan (to some extent) to critically view present and ongoing violations (now mostly agreed with opinion) of the right to privacy. W. A. Parents and others on the definition of privacy and Louis D Brandeis on a political and legal ideal of privacy have been talked about.
 Approach: prior research studies and existing literature was examined regarding privacy.
 Findings: Privacy is acknowledged as a human rights issue, but it constitutes a real problem when the values and objectives behind privacy are different. Contemporary issues of unlimited surveillance and data collection to battle terrorism by law enforcement agencies and governments are particularly alarming to invade the right.

Stare decisis and information abundance in a common law jurisdiction

In a common law jurisdiction, according to the principle of stare decisis judges are bound to interpret a constitutional or common law principle by applying authoritative cases already decided. Parties in disputes pending before the courts must find and assess the prior cases on which they can expect that judges will rely. Not very long ago, research for such precedent involved reviewing known cases and linking them to other cases using topical digests and citators. Success with this approach required a patient, persistent, thorough, and open-minded methodology. Modern information accessibility gives previously unimaginable quick access to cases, including with tools that promise to predict judicial tendencies. But this technological accessibility can have negative side effects, including a diminished research aptitude and a stilted capacity to synthesize information. It can also lead to an inadequate account of the human factors that often cause judges to depart from predictions based on logical inference from prior cases. This article considers the extent to which the identification of precedent is essential in legal analysis, yet is of limited value in predictability as a result of judges’ unavoidably human perspectives. With examples from landmark cases, the article illustrates that judges sometimes make decisions based on considerations that will not be revealed in a mechanistic application of precedent. The article considers how evolving legal research tools and methods give access to precedent that in some respects makes the process more scientific, but in other respects can obscure the realities of how cases are decided. The article also gives examples of this paradox as demonstrated by today’s students who are learning how to do research, drawn from years of the authors’ teaching experience.

Involuntary Administration of Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics for Competency Restoration.

In implementing the decisions in the landmark case Sell v. United States, jurisdictions have adopted mechanisms for the involuntary medication of defendants to restore competency to stand trial. These procedures attempt to balance the liberty and privacy rights of the accused against the government's responsibility to ensure timely prosecution and fair trial. The question of which medications are most appropriate for this goal, however, remains open. This article reviews the legal status of the administration of long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics for sustained competency restoration. We explore case law and discuss the theoretical and empirical benefits and drawbacks to this practice, considering recent technological advancements in LAI development. Some courts have regarded LAI use pursuant to Sell as equivalent or superior to immediate-acting medications, whereas others have regarded LAIs as either more intrusive or medically riskier. We conclude that the use of LAIs may be carefully integrated into treatment plans to restore and maintain trial competency amid competing interests.

Rape, Popular Culture, and Nirbhaya: A Study of India's Daughter and Delhi Crime

The brutal gang rape of Jyoti Singh (Nirbhaya) on a bus in New Delhi became worldwide news in 2012. Widely known as the Nirbhaya rape incident, it was a landmark case that led the Indian government to amend existing criminal laws on sexual violence and rape. The rape also came to transform the media landscape into a space of social activism. Despite that popular cultural representations of the incident have been critiqued for appropriating rape myths. Through a thematic analysis of the BBC documentary, India's Daughter (2015), and the Netflix series, Delhi Crime (2019), the paper examines the ways in which popular culture sustains and furthers rape culture. By interrogating the thematic-cum-visual discourse of these texts, this paper explores the ideological and sexual tropes to understand the cultural configuration of rape and rape victims/survivors. The study finds the ongoing discourse centering rape in popular culture to be a reiteration of the patriarchal norms prevalent in Indian society.

The history and evolution of vestibular schwannoma surgery: a comprehensive review

Vestibular schwannoma (VS) surgery has had a compelling historical evolution. This article aimed to provide a detailed narrative historical review of the chronological progression and conception of surgical VS management. Acknowledgment of the development, revision, and transformation of VS surgery over the decades facilitate a comprehensive understanding of current clinical practice and the scope for further procedural evolution. Following the commencement of VS surgery in the late 18th century, procedures and management have been perpetually revised and augmented, culminating in drastically improved surgical outcomes. This article draws upon the primary source material to provide augmented acuity into the principal pioneers and landmark cases that define the surgery’s trajectory. Moreover, the article includes original interpretive artwork by the first author along with a detailed timeline to facilitate enhanced perspicacity of this unique and salient constituent in surgical history.

Alabama Justice: The Cases and Faces That Changed a Nation by Steven P. Brown

Reviewed by: Alabama Justice: The Cases and Faces That Changed a Nation by Steven P. Brown Ian J. Drake Alabama Justice: The Cases and Faces That Changed a Nation. By Steven P. Brown. (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2020. Pp. xiv, 262. $49.95, ISBN 978-0-8173-2070-6.) Steven P. Brown has written an account of notable U.S. Supreme Court cases and short biographies of three Supreme Court justices, all from Alabama. [End Page 421] This volume appears to be intended for an undergraduate or graduate-level readership. Although the explanations of the litigation histories and doctrinal backgrounds of these cases are engaging, scholars in the fields of law and constitutional history will find little that is new here. It is uncertain what unites the cases collected in this volume other than their constitutional law elements and the fact that they all happened to originate in Alabama state and federal courts. The author is aware of the arbitrary nature of these cases and poses a question, "Why Alabamians?" (p. 3). Brown suggests that state residents in the mid-twentieth century began to take their constitutional rights "seriously" and turned to the courts to vindicate them (p. 3). Did they fail to take their rights seriously before? If so, why? No explanation is given. The cases reviewed are quite important in American constitutional history. For example, NAACP v. Alabama (1958) was a case wherein Alabama state officials sought the membership list of the state chapter of the NAACP. The Court invalidated the state action under the substantive due process clause rubric of incorporating the free expression rights of the First Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. This case aided the civil rights movement by protecting advocacy organizations from being compelled to reveal their members and agents, which would, in turn, have deterred supporters from contributing or joining such organizations. Another notable case from Alabama was New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), wherein the civil rights movement was again indirectly aided by the Court's creation of a higher bar for the successful pursuit of defamation claims by public officials against news organizations. The result encouraged greater media coverage of the civil rights movement due to the reduced fear that state officials could maintain successful defamation lawsuits against newspapers and radio and television organizations. Although these are important—even landmark—cases, there does not seem to be any distinct reason that they originated in Alabama. In fact, what makes the cases important is the fact that they resonated far beyond Alabama; they affected other states because other states were engaged in the same or similar behaviors. Although this book is a hodgepodge of cases, they are all from the twentieth century, and most of them are related to the civil rights movement. In fact, a slim majority are from the era of Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953–1969). This work will be most beneficial to undergraduate and graduate students in terms of recounting the history of constitutional doctrines and explaining how those doctrines were exemplified in a single case. Brown recounts the history of a doctrine, such as gendered distinctions in the law or the Court's treatment of the commerce clause, both before and after the instant case, and explains how that case affected constitutional law and social or political practice. One feature of the book from which even constitutional scholars will benefit is the mini biographies of three Alabamians who served on the U.S. Supreme Court. Brown reviews the histories of John McKinley, John Archibald Campbell, and Hugo L. Black. McKinley's life exemplifies the hardships of justices from the antebellum period when circuit riding was hazardous to their health and made the Court the least appealing of federal posts. Campbell was so renowned a practitioner that all the then-sitting justices petitioned President [End Page 422] Franklin Pierce for him to be nominated. Finally, Black, Franklin D. Roosevelt's first appointment to the Court, is remembered for his strident support for applying the Bill of Rights to the states. Unfortunately, there is no concluding section to the book, which might have provided an argument for the distinctiveness of Alabama politics or culture...

Abortion in the United States: The Road to Vague Legislation

Roe v. Wade was one of the first landmark cases instituting abortion policies in the United States. While legislation regarding abortion has been modified since 1973, the state of the nation has also changed as it has become increasingly polarized. Abortion legislation was introduced as an attempt to solve a privacy issue. However, over time, the discourse around abortion turned away from its legality in terms of privacy to also include discussion about healthcare and the morality of the legislation itself. Vague legislation yields uncertainty for the future of abortion policies

Shifting interpretations in evidence and guidance in pain and opioids research: A bibliometric analysis of a highly cited case series from 1986.

We conducted a multi-method bibliometric analysis of all citations of this article from 1986 through 2019 using quantitative relational and qualitative content analysis to determine how uses and interpretations of this case series and associated prescribing guidance have changed over time, in relationship to the evolution of the North American opioid crises. Using time series analysis, we identified three periods with distinct interpretations and uses of the index article. In the first 'exploration' period (1986-1996), the index article was well-received by the scientific community and motivated further study of the effects of opioids. In the second 'implementation' period (1997-2003, coinciding with the release of OxyContin®), this case series was used as evidence to support widespread prescribing of opioid analgesics, even while it was recognized that long-term effects had not yet been evaluated. The third 'reassessment' period (2004-2019) focused on how opioid-related harms had been overlooked, and in many cases, these harms were directly attributed to this article. These changes in interpretation demonstrate shifting currents of the use and mobilization of evidence regarding pain and opioids, and how these currents both impact and are impacted by clinical practices and major sociohistorical phenomena such as the opioid crisis. Researchers and clinicians must account for these shifting dynamics when developing and interpreting scientific knowledge, including in the form of clinical practice guidelines.

Personality disorders and forensic assessments: The benefits of ICD-11.

A recent landmark case in the Australian state of Victoria clarified the ways in which personality disorders may be taken into account when the courts are sentencing convicted offenders. The ruling especially emphasised: the need for evidence to be 'cogent'; the need to determine 'severity' of the personality disorder; the need to consider whether there is a 'connection to the offending'; the need for caution when diagnoses are based solely on behaviour; and the need to consider rehabilitative prospects and community protection. The ruling has significant implications for how forensic experts in all jurisdictions might most effectively assist the courts with the task of sentencing offenders with personality disorders. In this paper we argue that the approach to diagnosis taken in the newly published ICD-11 manual, that eschews 'categories' of personality disorder, in favour of a dimensional model supported by trait theory, is of much greater utility to forensic mental health experts striving to address these issues, compared to traditional 'categorical' approaches.

Self-Preferencing and Competitive Damages: A Focus on Exploitative Abuses

Conceived as a theory of competitive harm, self-preferencing has been at the core of recent European landmark cases (e.g., Google Android, Google Shopping). In the context of EU competition law, beyond the anticompetitive leveraging effect, self-preferencing may lead to vertical and horizontal exclusionary abuses, encourage exploitation abuses, and generate economic dependence abuses. In this paper, we aim at characterizing the various forms of self-preferencing, investigating platforms’ capacity and incentives to do so through their dual role, by shedding light on the economic assessment of these practices in an effects-based approach. We analyze the different options for remedies in this context, by insisting on their necessity, adequacy, and proportionality.

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor John Adam To the editors and readers of The Michigan Historical Review: Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued 193 executive orders in 2020. Most addressed COVID-19 pandemic issues; however, Executive Order 2020-139 (issued in June) renamed Lansing's Lewis Cass Building as the Elliott-Larsen Building. Governor Whitmer renamed the building without consulting any Michigan historical organization and without approval of the legislature, even though it was named the Lewis Cass Building by a 1952 Michigan House of Representatives concurrent resolution. The governor says that no one can deny the important role Cass played in Michigan and the nation's early history. But the governor did not say what Cass did, did not consider the historical context in which he lived, and did not explain that his position on these issues were the positions of the Democratic Party and its leaders. Instead, the governor justified the renaming by claiming that "Cass owned a slave; defended a system to permit the expansion of slavery; and implemented a policy that forcibly removed Native Americans from their tribal lands." The governor should be careful in cherry-picking the record of Cass and in making retroactive assessments of this nineteenth-century politician. Cass, a Democratic Party politician for five decades, should be judged in full historical context. Trained as a lawyer, he had an impressive resume. He was a member of the Ohio legislature (1806), US marshal of Ohio (1807-1812), colonel during the War of 1812, governor of the Michigan Territory (1813-1818, 1820, 1822-1823, 1825-1826, 1828-1829), and served concurrently as superintendent of Indian Affairs (1813-1831), secretary of war (1831-1836) under President Andrew Jackson, minister to France under Jackson and President Martin Van Buren (1836-1842), Michigan senator (1845-1847), 1848 Democratic presidential candidate (losing to Zachary Taylor), again Michigan senator (1849-1857), and secretary of state (1858-1860) under President James Buchanan. Governor Whitmer's criticisms would apply to almost every Democratic officeholder during Cass's lifetime and later. The governor's statement that Cass owned a single slave was odd, so I tried to find the basis for this [End Page 171] claim. I believe the source is William Klunder's 1996 book Lewis Cass and the Politics of Moderation (Kent State University Press). Klunder wrote that, while Cass said he never owned a slave, a "note written to Cass by General Alexander Macomb reveals that the governor was negotiating with the general's cousin, David Betton Macomb, to sell a slave." (47) Klunder believes Cass owned a slave used for domestic work. If it is true that Cass owned a slave, and the evidence is weak on this, we know that many of our greatest leaders owned slaves. Indeed, consider US Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan (1833-1911), who dissented in the landmark case of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). Justice Harlan wrote that "our constitution is color-blind." But, as Peter Canellos notes in his book The Great Dissenter (Simon and Schuster, 2021), before that Harlan "owned slaves and supported slavery right up through the Civil War," and was on the "record as having initially opposed the postwar amendments to the Constitution, maintaining that his state of Kentucky—which had painfully resisted the Confederacy—should be rewarded by getting to make its own decision on whether to free its slaves based on a popular vote." (19) Cass was not an abolitionist (nor was Abraham Lincoln), but he was anti-slavery. Like Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas and other northern Democrats, Cass was a proponent of "popular sovereignty" as a route to avoid civil war. Cass advocated sectional compromise with the slave states to keep the nation from violent conflict. The Democratic Party in 1856 ran on a platform that embraced the popular sovereignty argument. This allowed people residing in new territories to decide if new states would permit slavery or not. Moreover, Cass resigned as secretary of state in 1860 in protest over President Buchanan's refusal to reinforce Fort Sumter and the defenses surrounding Charleston, South Carolina. Cass fully supported the Union during the subsequent war, as articulated by historical works such as Frank B. Woodford's Lewis Cass...

The Ethics of Delivering Bad News: Evaluating Impression Management Strategies in Corporate Financial Reporting

Business communication textbooks offer impression management (IM) strategies to help students learn how to soften bad news. But corporations sometimes use these strategies in ethically questionable ways. This article analyzes IM strategies in a landmark case of ethically dubious corporate financial reporting. Findings suggest that the company, Ivax, manipulated three standard IM strategies by overamplifying its power to fix a financial crisis, substantially downplaying bad news, and concealing damaging information. Ivax also used a fourth, less familiar strategy: It buried contradictory information in legal disclaimers. Instructors need to help students become ethical writers who avoid questionable IM strategies like these.

Attitudes Towards LGBT Individuals After bostock v. Clayton County: Evidence From a Quasi Experiment

Do United States Supreme Court decisions on LGBT rights shape attitudes towards LGBT individuals among the mass public? In this paper, I conduct an empirical test of the effect of quasi-random exposure to the announcement of Bostock v. Clayton County—a landmark case which held that an employer who fires their employee because of their sexual orientation or gender identity violates Section VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act—on favorability towards LGBT individuals. Relying on data from Phase 2 of the Democracy Fund/UCLA Nationscape survey, I find that quasi-random exposure to the announcement of Bostock engendered increases in favorability towards LGBT individuals among the wider American public. Subgroup analyses also indicate that the largest increases in favorability were among Democratic partisans and the religiously unaffiliated, while minimal changes in favorability were detected among those who are among the most likely to oppose LGBT rights, including Republicans and Evangelical Protestants. The findings speak to the validity of the legitimacy model and highlight the limitations of the backlash model in the post-Obergefell era of public opinion towards LGBT rights.

Indirect discrimination and substantive equality in Nitisha: Easier said than done under Indian constitutional jurisprudence

This note analyses the recent landmark case of Lt Col Nitisha v Union of India, dated 25 March 2021, where the Supreme Court of India formally recognised the concept of indirect discrimination under Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Indian Constitution. Despite the favourable outcome and conceptual leaps in acknowledging that indirect discrimination is closely tied to substantive equality, the reasoning in the judgment does not fully cohere with these conceptual insights. This note critically examines how Nitisha poses barriers to addressing indirect discrimination with a substantive equality lens, particularly because of an intent-based divide between direct and indirect discrimination, a causal requirement between the norm and disparate impact, adoption of mirror comparators and the lack of clarity on justifications.

Goldberg v. Kelly: The Case, the Clerk, and the Justice

Goldberg v. Kelly: The Case, the Clerk, and the Justice Michael Nelson (bio) During his nearly thirty-four years on the Supreme Court, Justice William J. Brennan wrote 461 majority opinions, including those in landmark cases such as Baker v. Carr, New York Times v. Sullivan, Cooper v. Aaron, Frontiero v. Richardson, and Texas v. Johnson.1 Yet Brennan described his opinion for the Court in Goldberg v. Kelly as “probably the most important thing that came out of these chambers from me.”2 Brennan was not alone in that assessment. According to Stephen Breyer, who is perhaps as deeply versed in the subject as any justice in the history of the Court, “Goldberg v. Kelly revolutionized administrative law.”3 Yale Law School Professor Jeffrey Mashaw described it as the opening salvo in a “due process revolution.”4 Henry Friendly, the chief judge of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, suggested that the case caused “a greater expansion of procedural due process. . . than in the entire period since the ratification of the Constitution.”5 Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin wrote, “Goldberg v. Kelly is one of those cases that is so big, its influence so persuasive, its implications so immense, that it is difficult to get a firm grip on it.” Toobin recalled “that I was assigned to read the case in no fewer than five different classes in law school: Constitutional Law (what due process means and who is entitled to it and for what?); Property (do welfare benefits count as property?); Civil Procedure (how much process is ‘due’ process?); Administrative Law (how much process is ‘due’ process—specifically?); and Law of the Welfare State (that course was basically about Goldberg v. Kelly).”6 The Case The Goldberg in Goldberg v. Kelly was Jack Goldberg, New York City’s Commissioner of Welfare. He was appealing a lower court ruling in favor of John Kelly and nineteen other welfare recipients. Their benefits were terminated by their caseworkers for various reasons, and their only recourse was to file a written appeal to their caseworker’s supervisor. Even if they made such an appeal, [End Page 162] their benefits would remain cut off unless and until they prevailed. Welfare owed its existence to a patch-work of state and federal laws, the most important of which was the Social Security Act of 1935. In addition to its most prominent feature—old-age insurance—the act provided modest financial support for other categories of people, including dependent children. Commonly referred to as welfare, this support came in the form of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), a program jointly funded by the state and federal governments to provide financial support for single-parent households headed by unmarried, divorced, or widowed women. Widows featured prominently among early beneficiaries, but over time the typical AFDC recipient was more likely to be a politically less sympathetic unwed mother. Most states responded to this change by authorizing local program administrators to deny or cut off benefits to families in which, for example, a man was living in the home. But New York, an unusually generous state, provided additional payments to eligible recipients through its Home Relief program to help cover additional housing, clothing, and certain other needs. The origin of Goldberg v. Kelly lay mostly with lawyers at New York City’s Mobilization for Youth (MFY) Legal Unit and Columbia University’s Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law (CSWPL). For years, such legal representation as AFDC beneficiaries were able to obtain when their benefits were terminated or reduced usually had come from Legal Aid Society lawyers, whose limited number, narrow mission, and slender resources restricted them to helping individuals navigate existing laws and regulations rather than challenging the laws and regulations themselves. According to legal scholar Martha F. Davis, “Despite eighty-nine years of representing the poor, Legal Aid lawyers had never appealed a case to the Supreme Court.”7 In 1964, however, MFY expanded its focus on “organizing the unaffiliated—the lower fifth of the economic ladder” by creating a unit to mount legal challenges to “social policy and administrative practices rather than to supply legal help to clients.”8 One year later, Columbia’s...

The English Judicial Trends in Lifting the Corporate Veil

The “separate legal personality” and “limited liability” are two main and fundamental principles of corporate law. The concept of a separate legal personality of the company originated from the case Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd. The landmark case decided that when a company is registered, it attains a separate legal identity. A corporate veil is a concept that recognizes the separate corporate personality of the company from the shareholders‟ personalities. In many circumstances, it happens that the corporate personality of the company commits fraud or any other illegal acts. It becomes impossible to believe that an artificial personality like a company commits any illegal act or fraud. In such cases, for the identification of the original wrongdoer, the veil of the corporation is pierced which is also called lifting the corporate veil. To highlight the English Courts’ trends in lifting the corporate veil, this article unearths the canons of English courts’ judgments to pinpoint the inconsistencies in their decisions. The paper inspects the exceptions to the Saloman rule that have been focused on and meticulously analysed in this research paper to highlight the evolution of these recognised exceptions including “Single Economic Entity, Fraud, and Facade, Sake of justice, and Agency.”

Management of issues relating to marriage, mental illness, and Indian legislation.

Management of issues relating to marriage, mental illness, and Indian legislation.

Եվրոպական միության արդարադատության դատարան. եվրոպական տնտեսական ինտեգրման հիմնասյուն իրավական կառույցը/Court of Justice of the European Union: a Legal Pillar of the European Economic Integration

The article discusses the landmark cases of the Court of Justce of the European Union (CJEU), which had a considerable impact on the strength and deepness of European integration. However, to better understand the EU legal order, we will start with the presentation of the peculiarities of the EU legislation and the CJEU structure. The article was summarized by presenting the factors and circumstances that hinder and limit the power of the CJEU.