FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W289487225> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W289487225 startingPage "969" @default.
• W289487225 abstract "In the 1983 decision of Michigan v. Long, (2) the United States Supreme Court held that when a state court bases its decision primarily on federal law, or state grounds that are interwoven with federal law, the Court will assume that it has jurisdiction to review that case. (3) State courts, however, could avoid Supreme Court review if that court provides a plain statement indicating that the decision rests on adequate and independent state grounds. (4) It has been almost twenty years since this landmark decision was handed down and the result has sparked much academic debate. This note attempts to add to this debate in several ways. Section I discusses the variety of standards that the United States Supreme Court has implemented to deal with problems arising under ambiguously grounded cases prior to Long. (5) Section II analyzes Long to discern the purpose of the case and the reasons for the Court's decision. (6) Next, Section III examines what goals were to be accomplished by the Court in adopting this new approach. (7) Section III explains the concerns that opponents, such as Justice Stevens, had regarding the effect of this new presumption. Section IV examines the nature of the twenty-five subsequent cases that the Supreme Court has taken based on jurisdiction established in Michigan v. Long. (8) Once the Supreme Court determined that it had jurisdiction to hear these cases, the Court went on to reverse and remand these cases for proceedings consistent with its earlier opinion. As a result, Section IV also takes an extensive look at the reaction of the lower courts once the case was remanded--whether the state court accepted the Court's reasoning or whether it declined to follow it and, instead, analyzed the case under the state constitution. (9) Section V examines whether the state courts made an effort to comply with Long by providing the Court with a plain statement that their judgments rested on independent and adequate state grounds. In contrast, a survey of the cases reveals that a number of cases failed to satisfy--consciously or through neglect, the Supreme Court's standard. (10) Finally, Section VI discusses whether Long has successfully accomplished its purpose(s) or whether the Supreme Court overreached its jurisdiction. More specifically, this section examines whether the opponents of Long were accurate in warning that expanding the Court's jurisdiction would result in a swollen docket, tension and conflict between courts, and a flood of advisory opinions. (11) After extracting the results from the note, a determination can be made that Long has not produced a bright-line conclusion. First, although it has been almost twenty years since the decision was handed down, some state courts have yet to realize the implications of the Long decision. As a consequence, some state courts have not adhered to the plain statement rule, even when seeking to rest their decision on their own state constitution. Second, although Long has provided the Court with a solid rule to follow instead of the ad hoc approaches used in the past, compliance with the rule has not achieved the goals that it was set out to accomplish. Thus, this note proposes a new and better approach for both the Supreme Court and state courts to follow. (12) The new approach for the Supreme Court, although not requiring literal compliance with Long, would not assume that it does not have jurisdiction in the absence of a statement to the contrary. This novel approach would give greater deference to the state courts if they make a bona-fide attempt to rest their decision on state grounds. This deference will permit the Court's goals in Long to be fully achieved, instead of having them only partially attained. Finally, the new approach for state courts would alert and require the courts to be conscious of the obligation that they have to clearly base their decisions on either state or federal grounds. I. …" @default.
• W289487225 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W289487225 creator A5074261954 @default.
• W289487225 date "2003-03-22" @default.
• W289487225 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W289487225 title "Revisiting Michigan V. Long after Twenty Years" @default.
• W289487225 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W289487225 type Work @default.
• W289487225 sameAs 289487225 @default.
• W289487225 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W289487225 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W289487225 hasAuthorship W289487225A5074261954 @default.
• W289487225 hasConcept C103106408 @default.
• W289487225 hasConcept C110346835 @default.
• W289487225 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W289487225 hasConcept C136576888 @default.
• W289487225 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W289487225 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W289487225 hasConcept C2776862595 @default.
• W289487225 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W289487225 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W289487225 hasConcept C2780253743 @default.
• W289487225 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W289487225 hasConcept C46415393 @default.
• W289487225 hasConcept C47855350 @default.
• W289487225 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W289487225 hasConcept C50688660 @default.
• W289487225 hasConcept C61192294 @default.
• W289487225 hasConcept C66487177 @default.
• W289487225 hasConcept C87501996 @default.
• W289487225 hasConceptScore W289487225C103106408 @default.
• W289487225 hasConceptScore W289487225C110346835 @default.
• W289487225 hasConceptScore W289487225C11413529 @default.
• W289487225 hasConceptScore W289487225C136576888 @default.
• W289487225 hasConceptScore W289487225C17744445 @default.
• W289487225 hasConceptScore W289487225C199539241 @default.
• W289487225 hasConceptScore W289487225C2776862595 @default.
• W289487225 hasConceptScore W289487225C2776949292 @default.
• W289487225 hasConceptScore W289487225C2778272461 @default.
• W289487225 hasConceptScore W289487225C2780253743 @default.
• W289487225 hasConceptScore W289487225C41008148 @default.
• W289487225 hasConceptScore W289487225C46415393 @default.
• W289487225 hasConceptScore W289487225C47855350 @default.
• W289487225 hasConceptScore W289487225C48103436 @default.
• W289487225 hasConceptScore W289487225C50688660 @default.
• W289487225 hasConceptScore W289487225C61192294 @default.
• W289487225 hasConceptScore W289487225C66487177 @default.
• W289487225 hasConceptScore W289487225C87501996 @default.
• W289487225 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W289487225 hasLocation W2894872251 @default.
• W289487225 hasOpenAccess W289487225 @default.
• W289487225 hasPrimaryLocation W2894872251 @default.
• W289487225 hasRelatedWork W127446785 @default.
• W289487225 hasRelatedWork W1519814451 @default.
• W289487225 hasRelatedWork W1520067775 @default.
• W289487225 hasRelatedWork W1528740383 @default.
• W289487225 hasRelatedWork W1554855923 @default.
• W289487225 hasRelatedWork W1586563169 @default.
• W289487225 hasRelatedWork W1848239615 @default.
• W289487225 hasRelatedWork W2179647680 @default.
• W289487225 hasRelatedWork W2229120737 @default.
• W289487225 hasRelatedWork W2254041903 @default.
• W289487225 hasRelatedWork W2259503676 @default.
• W289487225 hasRelatedWork W2469255782 @default.
• W289487225 hasRelatedWork W253492520 @default.
• W289487225 hasRelatedWork W293350763 @default.
• W289487225 hasRelatedWork W2942393106 @default.
• W289487225 hasRelatedWork W3121446480 @default.
• W289487225 hasRelatedWork W3121492764 @default.
• W289487225 hasRelatedWork W3121913738 @default.
• W289487225 hasRelatedWork W3123302356 @default.
• W289487225 hasRelatedWork W3134414792 @default.
• W289487225 hasVolume "66" @default.
• W289487225 isParatext "false" @default.
• W289487225 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W289487225 magId "289487225" @default.
• W289487225 workType "article" @default.