共 50 条
- [1] WHY THE SUPREME-COURT WAS PLAINLY WRONG IN THE HYDE AMENDMENT CASE - A BRIEF COMMENT[J]. STANFORD LAW REVIEW, 1981, 33 (06) : 1187 - 1189WESTERN, P
- [2] WHY THE SUPREME-COURT WAS PLAINLY WRONG IN THE HYDE AMENDMENT CASE - A BRIEF COMMENT ON HARRIS V MCRAE[J]. STANFORD LAW REVIEW, 1980, 32 (06) : 1113 - 1128PERRY, MJ
- [3] WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE SUPREME-COURT[J]. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH LAW REVIEW, 1990, 51 (03) : 673 - 697BATOR, PM
- [4] SUPREME-COURT PRACTICES - AN AMENDMENT TO 1980 RULES[J]. AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 1980, 66 (DEC): : 1530 - 1531GRESSMAN, E
- [5] FEDERALISM AND UNANIMITY - THE SUPREME-COURT AND CONSTITUTIONAL-AMENDMENT[J]. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE-REVUE CANADIENNE DE SCIENCE POLITIQUE, 1983, 16 (04): : 757 - 770LASELVA, SV
- [6] THE SUPREME-COURT AND THE 1ST-AMENDMENT - HEMMER,JJ[J]. JOURNAL OF AMERICAN CULTURE, 1986, 9 (01): : 96 - 97BROWNE, GJ
- [7] THE SUPREME-COURT AND THE MEIKLEJOHN INTERPRETATION OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT[J]. HARVARD LAW REVIEW, 1965, 79 (01) : 1 - 20BRENNAN, WJ
- [8] THE SUPREME-COURT AND ITS 1ST-AMENDMENT CONSTITUENCY[J]. HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL, 1993, 44 (04) : 881 - 899TUSHNET, M
- [9] THE SUPREME-COURT, THE 1ST-AMENDMENT, AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION[J]. PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, 1986, 46 (06) : 622 - 628COOPER, PJ
- [10] HISTORY, TRADITION, THE SUPREME-COURT, AND THE 1ST-AMENDMENT[J]. HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL, 1993, 44 (04) : 901 - 919CHEMERINSKY, E