Showing papers on "Supreme Court Decisions published in 1971"

Marketing Notes and Communications: Market Exclusion and Dealer Coercion in Sponsored TBA Sales:

Abstract: A recent series of Supreme Court decisions has assumed the economic power of large oil companies causes dealers to restrict sales to sponsored brands with the result that competitors are denied acc...

Controlling Police Conduct: Alternatives to the Exclusionary Rule

Abstract: Expansion of the exclusionary rules through recent Supreme Court decisions is believed by many to be the most effective means of controlling police misconduct. The authors contest this view on two grounds. First, the police are not the sole, nor even necessarily the principal, offenders against whom the exclusionary rules should be aimed. Responsibility for the perpetuation of illegal police practices must instead be apportioned amongst all branches of the criminal justice system.1 Second, practical alternatives, or at least supplements, to the exclusionary rules do exist. Procedural rule-making by police departments themselves provides a solution which is both comprehensible to the policeman on the street and sufficient to satisfy the citizen's constitutional guarantees. In addition, police self-education can be served by police review of cases abandoned at the prosecutorial level to discover patterns of impermissible police conduct. Although this article necessarily centers on possible controls of police conduct, the authors feel compelled by their own allegiance to the police craft to disclaim, at the outset, any implication that they consider the police as the primary villains in a system where everyone else is carefully observing the rules.

The Fetish of Jury Trial in Civil Cases: A Comment on Rachal v. Hill

Abstract: U tNDER the influence of Supreme Court decisions on the right to jury trial in civil cases in the federal courts,1 most observers seem to develop a Pavlovian reaction to a seventh amendment, jury trial issue whenever it arises. Any close question and sometimes one that is not so close -is resolved in favor of the jury trial right without serious analysis of history, precedent, or policy. What may be of only passing interest in the classroom or in legal commentary becomes a cause for concern when it spreads to the lower federal courts. Yet the signs of contagion are appearing 2 -perhaps the most conspicuous recent example being the decision of the Fifth Circuit in Rachal v. Hill.3 At a time of growing concern over crowded dockets, the size of judgments, and the costs of litigation, the question whether we have more trial by jury than we want or need is well worth asking -and