scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers on "Supreme Court Decisions published in 1983"



Journal Article
TL;DR: Re-examining its earlier decision in this case in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Youngberg v Romeo, the appeals court re-affirmed that mentally ill patients who have been involuntarily committed to a state psychiatric institution possess the constitutional right to refuse administration of antipsychotic drugs.
Abstract: KIE: Re-examining its earlier decision in this case in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Youngberg v. Romeo, the appeals court re-affirmed that mentally ill patients who have been involuntarily committed to a state psychiatric institution possess the constitutional right to refuse administration of antipsychotic drugs. Such medication can be used forcibly only when professional judgment has been exercised. New Jersey regulations which provide, e.g., for a meeting between the physician and patient regarding the use of medication, do satisfy the professional judgment standard and the constitutional due process requirement.

3 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
01 Dec 1983-Polity
TL;DR: The authors argues that since the idea of settled expectations is central to such assertions and determinations, it makes sense to regard statutory entitlements as property under the constitution under the notion of settled expectation.
Abstract: The "sense" in Supreme Court decisions is at least partly a function of the Court's past opinions. Professor Brigham examines the Court's tradition with reference to property claims and how it has settled them. The basic understanding of the concept of property would seem to have remained stable over time, but new forms to which it applies have appeared in response to changing socioeconomic and poltical conditions. Property rights in titles, offices, grants, and franchises-among others -have been asserted and sustained. Professor Brigham argues that since the idea of settled expectations is central to such assertions and determinations, it makes sense to regard statutory entitlements as property under the constitution.

1 citations



Journal Article
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explore three ways that states can restrict hazardous-waste imports: (1) the narrow remaining ground for a direct, unilateral import restriction, (2) interstate compacts authorized under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and (3) state ownership of hazardouswaste facilities.
Abstract: This article explores three ways that states can restrict hazardous-waste imports: (1) the narrow remaining ground for a direct, unilateral import restriction, (2) interstate compacts authorized under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and (3) state ownership of hazardous-waste facilities. The analysis considers several lower federal and Supreme Court decisions, concluding that, despite obstacles, state ownership of hazardous-waste facilities provides the best means for states to impose import restrictions in the near future. 147 references.

1 citations