Suchergebnisse

In April 2014, news of long delays at the Phoenix VA Medical Center and the subsequent deaths of forty Veterans awaiting medical appointments shocked the nation. Based on this perceived failure among VA's senior medical staff, legislation swept through the House and the Senate in an attempt to enhance accountability at the VA. By August 2014, President Obama signed the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014 into law. This Act revises the termination procedures concerning the VA's senior executives, by eliminating the notice requirement, significantly reducing the appellate procedures for adverse employment decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board, and nearly eliminating the role of the MSPB's three-member Board in reviewing a final ALJ determination. As such, the Act raises procedural Due Process concerns. This Comment analyzes Section 707 of the Act in light of the Due Process Clause, pertinent legislative history, and prominent case law addressing the procedural due process framework. By balancing the interests at stake via the Mathews v. Eldridge test, this Comment argues that the Act's provisions violate the due process rights of VA's senior executives, and advocates for a more internal reform approach, centered on revising the agency's performance appraisal procedures to enhance accountability.

An event of the utmost importance in the field of firearms investigation"" is how Julian S. Hatcher, Technical Editor of The American Rifleman, greets the publication of this monumental work. Here in two volumes is assembled the greatest mass of authoritative information on weapons investigation and identification ever brought together in one place.PART I consists of a comprehensive discussion of the principles involved and the laboratory procedures used in the identification of guns from fired bullets and fired cartridges, including descriptions of methods of rifling, instrumentation (both co

Legal processes dominate many honor systems at schools and universities. The negative impacts of this legal saturation include time-consuming, overly burdensome, and seldom understood honor systems as well as a shift of student focus from compliance with honor codes to a fixation on exoneration, given the increased opportunity for fighting and defeating honor allegations using legal recourses. This article is a clarion call for higher education immediate action: schools must scrutinize their honor systems to ensure they are legally efficient, not legally saturated. Authors of books and law journal articles have meticulously reviewed the academic honor system history and legal case precedent this article summarizes. None of them, however, have concluded schools have the latitude to curb and reduce legal excesses and that society's increasing litigiousness demands immediate attention to reverse the corresponding trend within higher education honor systems. This article emphasizes the urgency of the situation and interprets the sometimes erratic but mostly forgiving judicial treatment of academic honor systems as a sign that there is latitude to reduce legal surpluses. Acknowledging that varying institutional missions prevent uniformly recommended changes, this article posits several legal theories to help schools recognize their leeway to make changes. The Constitution demands protection of students' due process rights. However, when legally burdensome honor systems impede swift justice and fail to inspire honorable living, it is high time for institutional introspection and change to help form more perfect and effective honor systems and better balance the interests of students and educational institutions.

Introduction / Ezra Rosser -- When paupers became people : Edwards v. California (1941) / Clare Pastore -- Remaking the "law of the poor" : Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. (1965) / Anne Fleming -- Sylvester Smith, unlikely heroine : King v. Smith (1968) / Henry Freedman -- Legal services attorneys and migrant advocates join forces : Shapiro v. Thompson (1969) / Elisa Minoff -- Dignity and passion : Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) / Melanie B. Abbott -- Litigating in the zeitgeist : Rosado v. Wyman (1970) / Wendy A. Bach -- A sweeping refusal of equal protection : Dandridge v. Williams (1970) / Julie A. Nice -- Privacy as a luxury not for the poor : Wyman v. James (1971) / Michele Estrin Gilman -- A tragedy of two Americas : Jefferson v. Hackney (1972) / Marie A. Failinger -- Denying the poor access to court : United States v. Kras (1973) / Henry Rose -- "The poor people have lost again" : San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) / Camille Walsh -- Reflecting and foreshadowing : Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) / John J. Capowski -- Chronicle of a debt foretold : Zablocki v. Red Hail (1978) / Tonya L. Brito, R. Kirk Anderson, and Monica Wedgewood -- The movement for a right to counsel in civil cases : Turner v. Rogers (2011) / Kelly Terry -- Public housing as housing of last resort : Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker (2002) / Nestor M. Davidson