Suche nach Bibliotheken, die diesen Titel besitzen ...
|Physisches Format||Online version:
Frankfurter, Felix, 1882-1965.
Constitutional world of Mr. Justice Frankfurter.
New York : Macmillan, 1949
|Name:||Felix Frankfurter; Felix Frankfurter; Felix Frankfurter|
Felix Frankfurter; Samuel Joseph Konefsky; United States. Supreme Court.
|Anmerkungen:||The opinions are those that Frankfurter expressed as an associate judge of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Includes Table of cases and index.
|Beschreibung:||xviii, 325 pages ; 22 cm|
|Inhalt:||Judicial power has its limitations. "Our exclusive business is litigation": Coleman v. Miller ; Courts and the conduct of foreign relations: United States v. Pink ; The judiciary and "the politics of the people": Colegrove v. Green --
Government and economic interests. "Questions of policy not for us to judge": Osborn v. Ozlin ; Agriculture "in our national economy": Tigner v. Texas ; The public interest and "the Constitutional restrictions of the contract clause": East New York Savings Bank v. Hahn ; "Labor and the Sherman Act": United States v. Hutcheson ; The "central purpose" of the Wagner Act: Phelps Dodge Corp. v. National Relations Board ; Labor injunctions and the government as "employer": United States v. United Mine Workers of America ; "The private power of unions": American Federation of Labor v. American Sash and Door Company --
Problems of federalism. Marshall's "seductive cliche": Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe ; "The Constitutional power of the United States over state activities": New York v. United States ; Labor relations and "the operation of economic forces across state line": Polish National Alliance v. National Labor Relations Board ; The Fair Labor Standards Act and "predominantly local situations": 10 East 4oth Street Building, Inc. v. Callus ; The Wagner Act and state regulation of union activities: Hill v. Florida ; State taxation and interstate transportation: Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Minnesota ; "The historic duty of the court": Freeman v. Hewit ; "Judicial power to grant a divorce:: Williams v. North Carolina --
Freedom and democracy. Minority rights and "appeal from legislation to adjudication": West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette ; Freedom of speech and picketing "set in a background of violence": Milk Wagon Drivers Union v. Meadowmoor Dairies ; "Confining the area of unrestricted industrial warfare": Carpenters & Joiners Union of America v. Ritter's Cafe ; Impartial justice and "trial by newspapers": Ridges v. California ; "Freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation": Baumgartner v. United States ; "The historic tests for determining what is a bill of attainder": United States v. Lovett ; "The public school must keep scrupulously free from entanglement in the strife of sects": McCollum v. Board of Education ; Publications inciting to crime and the "psychological dogmas of the Spencerian era": Winters v. New York --
Criminal justice in America. "Certain safeguards are essential to criminal justice": Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann ; "Each state is free to devise its own way of securing essential justice": Hysler v. Florida ; "The police must with reasonable promptness show legal cause for detaining arrested persons": McNabb v. United States ; Right to counsel in state criminal trials: Carter v. Illinois ; "Avoiding the dangers of a police state": Harris v. United States ; Exclusion from jury service: Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co. ; The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment: Adamson v. California ; Police methods "in conflict with deeply rooted feelings of the community": Haley v. Ohio --
Bureaucracy and judicial control. "Collaborative instrumentalities of justice": United States v. Morgan ; Differences between the judicial and the administrative processes: Federal Communications Commission v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co. ; "A power as old as the judicial system of the nation": Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission ; "The unfortunate effects of premature judicial review": Columbia Broadcasting System v. United States ; The grounds for administrative action must be "clearly disclosed and adequately sustained": Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp. ; "Insistence on empty formalism": City of Yonkers v. United States ; "The mischievous formula for fixing utility rates": Driscoll v. Edison Light and Power Co., Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co. ; "Sterile attempts at differentiation between 'fact' and 'law'": Trust Under the Will of Bingham v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ; "Courts act as courts and not as administrative adjuncts": Penfield Co. v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
|Verfasserangabe:||selected and edited by Samuel J. Konefsky.|