News & Publications

« Back to News Releases

UF College of Law experts available to comment on upcoming U.S. Supreme Court cases

October 8, 2009

GAINESVILLE, Fla. — University of Florida Levin College of Law faculty are available to discuss the following U.S. Supreme Court cases and the ramifications of the court’s verdicts.

The University of Florida has a broadcast studio equipped for live or live-to-tape interviews through our KU digital satellite uplink. For radio networks, we also have an ISDN live for clean audio interviews. To contact the UF College of Law Communication’s Office, call 352-273-0650 or e-mail semerson@law.ufl.edu.

Nov. 9, 2009 - Sullivan v. Florida (08-7621) and Graham v. Florida (08-7412)
The question: Whether the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments prohibits the imprisonment of a juvenile for life without the possibility of parole as punishment for the juvenile’s commission of a non-homicide crime?


Dec. 2, 2009: Stop the Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (08-1151)
The question: The Florida Supreme Court invoked “nonexistent rules of state substantive law" to reverse 100 years of uniform holdings that littoral rights are constitutionally protected. In doing so, did the Florida Court's decision cause a ''judicial taking" proscribed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?

Is the Florida Supreme Court's approval of a legislative scheme that eliminates constitutional littoral rights and replaces them with statutory rights a violation of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?

Is the Florida Supreme Court's approval of a legislative scheme that allows an executive agency to unilaterally modify a private landowner's property boundary without a judicial hearing or the payment of just compensation a violation of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?


Dec. 7, 2009: Florida v. Powell (08-1175)
The question: Whether the decision of the Florida Supreme Court holding that a suspect must be expressly advised of his right to counsel during custodial interrogation, conflicts with Miranda v. Arizona and decisions of federal and state appellate courts.

And, if so, does the failure to provide express advice of the right to the presence of counsel during questioning vitiate Miranda warnings which advice of both (a) the right to talk to a lawyer “before questioning, and (b) the “right to use” the right to consult a lawyer “at any time” during questioning?

Primary Navigation