The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History: December 3, 1996
12/3/1996: Printz v. U.S. argued.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (decided December 3, 1945): this case is (as my law professor put it) the "fountainhead" of personal jurisdiction law, finally ending the "presence in the state" games begun in 1878 by Pennoyer v. Neff (which Civ Pro profs waste a lot of time on): jurisdiction over defendant consistent with Due Process if had enough "minimum contacts" in the forum state to "not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" (at issue was payment of unemployment insurance by out-of-state shoe seller)
Hamilton v. Regents of University of California, 293 U.S. 245 (decided December 3, 1934): state university students with religious objection to war not exempt from required courses in military science; courses did not obligate them to military service
Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (decided December 3, 1991): guilty verdict as to one objective of conspiracy (impeding IRS investigation into taxes) will stand even if no verdict as to another objective (impeding DEA investigation into forfeitable assets) (petitioner was not charged as to second objective)
You're welcome! I’m always glad when 1) someone reads my comment and 2) it prompts curiosity.
If I were these students I would welcome a course in military science. It’s always good to know what you’re up against. Or at least when war seems certain be able to knowledgeably suggest less lethal alternatives.