Suchergebnisse

Two newspaper articles explaining Gov. Lister's decision not to pursue an in-depth investigation of Sanborn's allegations of malpractice during 1918 Flu Epidemic.

Three individual newspaper articles provide differing viewpoints on the outcome of the Board of Regents investigation and the continuation of the malpractice investigation by the War Department.

33 x 19 cm. newspaper clipping with a picture showing the conference committee of Seattle Improvement Clubs. Standing from left to right - Samuel C. Lancaster, F. L. Fuller, H. J. Probstfeld, W. Moeller, Samuel Ritter, B. D. Voris, L. H. Wheeler, G. A. Spencer, Christopher W. Horr, David Zerwekh. Seated - Joseph Shippen, Homer L. Hill, C. E. Bogardus, Carl J. Simth, F. J. Boyd, J. W. Lees, John Anderson, I. L. Starr, R. W. W. Jones, C. P. Dose, Ole Hanson, E. W. Way.

•Fighting Slurs at SCOTUS: The Korematsu Center works to oppose federal registration of disparaging trademarks in a case at the U.S. Supreme Court. •Safeguarding Democracy Under Trump: Law school faculty offer their thoughts on how lawyers can protect the rule of law under President Donald Trump. •To Serve With Honor: Law school alumni are working to serve veterans with legal needs and advocate on their behalf in Olympia. •Clinic Aims To Protect Workers' Rights: A new clinic allows students to help workers fight wage theft and discrimination. ; https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/thelawyer/1119/thumbnail.jpg

•A Capital Idea: The law school launches a Semester in Olympia Program for students interested in government and public policy.•Civil Rights on Trial: Student Katie Loberstein '16 takes a prisoner's civil rights case to the Ninth Circuit. and wins.•From Counsel to Candidate: Elected office allows alumni to put their problem-solving skills to work for their communities.•Homelessness Myths: Law students use research and data to fight common myths about people experiencing homelessness. ; https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/thelawyer/1118/thumbnail.jpg

Two caricatures from 19th Century issues of Vanity Fair: (L-R) The Claimants Council (1873) and The Tichborne Case (1873). Both come from the magazine's "Men of the Day" series. ; https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/library_photos/1018/thumbnail.jpg

Study Room 306 in the Law Library is home to several examples of Edwardian and Victorian caricatures based on prominent political and judicial figures of the day. ; https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/library_photos/1017/thumbnail.jpg

Two portraits by T. Woolnoth (b. 1875), an expert English artist and engraver. L: John Coply, 1st Baron Lyndhurst (1846). R: John Scott, 1st Earl of Eldon, Lord High Chancellor of England (1840) ; https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/library_photos/1019/thumbnail.jpg

Political caricatures by Edmond Xavier Kapp, a London-born artist who served as an official war artist for the United Kingdom from 1940-41, produced many portraits during his lifetime. ; https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/library_photos/1020/thumbnail.jpg

• Lawmakers Leave Politics Out of the Classroom • Freedom Restored: Professor and Students Help Transformed Man Win Clemency • Law School's Full-Tuition Scholars Work to Effect Societal Change • Graduate Fights for the Rights of Accused War Criminal ; https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/thelawyer/1109/thumbnail.jpg

Considering the difficulty of interdicting smugglers and aliens at the Mexican border, the Ninth Circuit's ready acceptance of founded suspicion to justify searches near the border is not surprising. The United States Supreme Court, however, has consistently held that the mere presence of an important governmental interest does not justify vitiating Fourth Amendment protections. The Fourth Amendment requires courts to scrutinize closely the interests of the individual prior to concluding that the interests of the government, however exigent and compelling, are paramount. This comment, after analyzing the conceptual underpinnings of automobile seizure law and "stop and frisk"--the possible grounds supporting the founded suspicion doctrine--concludes that the doctrine is unconstitutional as presently applied to cases arising near the border.