\u3cem\u3eLassiter v. Department of Social Services\u3c/em\u3e: The Right to Counsel in Parental Termination Proceedings

In Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, the Supreme Court of the United States held that due process mandates only a case-by-case analysis for determining when a court should appoint counsel for an indigent parent in an action to terminate parental rights. The author analyzes Lassiter in relation to the historical development of an indigent\u27s right to counsel in criminal and civil proceedings. The author argues that a case-by-case analysis is unlikely to afford adequate protection for a parent\u27s right to child custody and is also inconsistent with the Supreme Court\u27s previous decisions establishing an absolute right to counsel in criminal prosecutions

\u3cem\u3eGreene v. City of Memphis\u3c/em\u3e: Is Intent the Sine Qua Non of Discrimination Claims?

Seemingly routine actions taken by our nation\u27s cities and states, exercising their police power, increasingly face charges of racial discrimination. This casenote provides an historical perspective for, and an analysis of, a recent case currently on appeal before the United States Supreme Court. The author highlights the problems surrounding the various tests used to determine whether state action does in fact discriminate against a particular class or group of peopl

\u3cem\u3eLassiter v. Department of Social Services\u3c/em\u3e: The Right to Counsel in Parental Termination Proceedings

In Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, the Supreme Court of the United States held that due process mandates only a case-by-case analysis for determining when a court should appoint counsel for an indigent parent in an action to terminate parental rights. The author analyzes Lassiter in relation to the historical development of an indigent\u27s right to counsel in criminal and civil proceedings. The author argues that a case-by-case analysis is unlikely to afford adequate protection for a parent\u27s right to child custody and is also inconsistent with the Supreme Court\u27s previous decisions establishing an absolute right to counsel in criminal prosecutions

\u3cem\u3eGreene v. City of Memphis\u3c/em\u3e: Is Intent the Sine Qua Non of Discrimination Claims?

Seemingly routine actions taken by our nation\u27s cities and states, exercising their police power, increasingly face charges of racial discrimination. This casenote provides an historical perspective for, and an analysis of, a recent case currently on appeal before the United States Supreme Court. The author highlights the problems surrounding the various tests used to determine whether state action does in fact discriminate against a particular class or group of peopl