Western New England Law Review | Vol 1 | Iss 1

Skip to main content

Home > Student > Law Review > Vol. 1 (1978-1979) > Iss. 1 (1978)

Dedication

DEDICATION
The Board of Editors

Prefatory Material

MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Warren E. Burger

Articles

TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION: A LAWYER'S PRACTICAL APPROACH TO THE CASE LAW
Michael J. Hutter

THE LAW LIBRARY'S INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE TO THE Pro Se PATRON: A POST-Faretta REVIEW
Robert H. Abrams and Donald J. Dunn

Comments

THE STANDARD OF PROOF IN CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS IN MASSACHUSETTS: Superintendent of Worcester State Hospital v. Hagberg
William H. Abrashkin

THE INVENTORY SEARCH: THE AFTERMATH OF South Dakota v. Opperman
Philip F. Spillane

THE TOO OFTEN LATE ARRIVAL OF WISDOM, OR, WHAT TO DO WITH TRADE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND RECEIVABLE UNDER SECTION 357(c) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Sally King

Notes

CIVIL RIGHTS—SECTION 1983—WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION—AVAILABILITY OF DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF THOSE PERMITTED UNDER STATE LAW—Jones v. Hildebrant, 550 P.2d 339 (Colo. 1976), cert. granted, 429 U.S. 1061, cert. dismissed, 432 U.S. 189 (1977)
Michael J. Houlihan

HABEAS CORPUS—STATE CONTEMPORANEOUS OBJECTION RULE—EFFECT OF STATE PROCEDURAL DEFAULT ON AVAILABILITY OF FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW—Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977)
John P. Letourneau

CONSTITUTIONAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—Miranda WARNINGS NOT REQUIRED WHERE THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE DETERMINATION OF "CUSTODY": EFFECT OF SUSPECT'S PAROLEE STATUS. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977)
John J. Bogdanski

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—EVIDENCE—COCONSPIRATORS EXCEPTION—INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE REQUIREMENT—STATEMENTS BY ALLEGED COCONSPIRATORS MAY BE CONSIDERED BY TRIAL COURT IN ITS PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF ADMISSABILITY OF THOSE STATEMENTS—United States v. Martorano, 557 F.2d 1, aff'd on rehearing , 561 F.2d 406 (1st Cir. 1977), cert denied, 46 U.S.L.W. 3579 (March 21, 1978)
Paul R. McCary

CORPORATE LAW—FREEZE-OUT MERGER—FREEZE-OUT OF MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS MUST HAVE VALID BUSINESS PURPOSE—Singer v. Magnavox Co., 380 A.2d 969 (Del. 1997) and Tanzer v. International General Industries, Inc., 379 A.2d 1121 (Del. 1977)
Allan A. Campbell Jr.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—DUE PROCESS—LIBERTY INTEREST IN FOSTER FAMILIES REQUIRES CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION IN CHILD REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS—Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality & Reform, 431 U.S. 816 (1977)
David I. Schoen