Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 6 P17 docx

disrupted his studies. During one of his forced
suspensions, Kent read Sir William Blackstone’s
Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–
69), which led him to decide on a legal career.
Following college he secured a clerkship with
the attorney general of New York, and he was
admitted to the New York bar in 1785.
Kent began his law practice in Poughkeepsie,
New York. In 1790 he was elected to the New
York state legislature, where he served three
terms. A steadfast Federalist and supporter of
the U.S. Constitution, Kent was committed to a
strong national government. After losing a
congressional race in 1793, he moved to New
York City, where he practiced law and served as a
professor of law at Columbia University.
Kent became a member of the New York
Supreme Court in 1798, and served as chief
justice from 1806 to 1814. He is credited with
transforming the court into a professional,
respected bench. He introduced the practice of
issuing written as well as oral opinions, and was
instrumental in appointing an official reporter
to collect the written opinions into official
LAW
REPORTS
. Kent believed that such reports were
necessary so that past precedents could be read
and cited more easily.
During his time on the court, Kent addressed
the then burning issue of whether English

precedents could claim the authority of law in
the United States. Some members of the New
York bar felt that the American Revolution
would be unfinished until the United States had
a body of law of its own, untainted by the laws of
its former imperial master.
Kent disagreed. He argued that the predict-
ability of justice was an indispensable require-
ment for achieving the commercial progress and
stable social order sought by the Federalists. He
further suggested that citation and the following
of precedent were the best means to judicial
predictability. Like many Federalists he admired
the stability of the English common law and he
maintained that it was the best system ever
devised to ensure justice and order. Although he
did not follow precedent blindly, Kent believed
that previous decisions should not be expressly
overturned except when absolutely necessary.
Kent was appointed chancellor of the New
York Court of Chancery in 1814. This court was
a court of equity, which applied rules of
fairness, rather than a court of law, which
applied common and statutory law to the
resolution of disputes. Most of the matters
before it involved commercial disputes. As
chancellor Kent was empowered to do justice
based on the particular facts of each case and
the equitable principles that had developed in
England. He used his equity powers to effect his

sense that commercial bargains ought to be
subject to some equitable scrutiny to ensure that
unconscionable advantage was not taken.
By law Kent was forced to retire from the
bench at age 60, in 1823. He returned to the
private
PRACTICE OF LAW and was reappointed to a
professorship at Columbia. He was consulted by
lawyers and judges about legal issues, and gave a
series of lectures at Columbia that became, in
revised form, the core of his Commentaries. This
treatise, which was published in four volumes,
was similar to Blackstone’s Commentaries in
scope but did not follow Blackstone’s precisely
in form. Kent’s Commentaries covered
INTERNA-
TIONAL LAW
, the Constitution and government of
the United States, the municipal laws of the
states, personal rights, and real and
PERSONAL
PROPERTY
. It quickly became an authoritative and
classic example of the U.S. treatise tradition.
Five editions were published in Kent’s lifetime,
and many more followed in the nineteenth
century. The twelfth edition (1873) was edited
by
OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR.
James Kent.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
148 KENT, JAMES
Kent died December 12, 1847, in New York
City.
CROSS REFERENCE
Blackstone’s Commentaries.
KENT STATE STUDENT KILLINGS
In 1970 the United States was in the middle of
the VIETNAM WAR, and anti-war demonstrations
among students around the country were
frequent. However, one at Kent State University
in Kent, Ohio (near Akron) turned deadly. In
13 seconds of rifle fire, four students were killed
and nine others injured by a
NATIONAL GUARD
contingent called in to quell the crowd. The
tragic event cast the university into the
international spotlight, and changed the face
of student demonstrations forever.
The rioting had begun on Friday, May 1,
1970, when several students organized an on-
campus demonstration to protest U.S. troops
entering Cambodia. That evening, a crowd of
drinking and agitated students moved off
campus and began
BREAKING windows in the
center of town. Police were called in to disperse
the crowd. The Kent city mayor, having heard
rumors of a radical plot in the making, declared

a state of emergency and Ohio officials called in
the National Guard. Local bars were closed by
authorities, and rioters were herded back
toward the campus with tear gas.
By Saturday the agitated demonstrators had
threatened local merchants and surrounded the
on-campus barracks of the Army Reserve
Officer Training Corps (ROTC), setting the
building on fire. When firemen attempted to
extinguish the blaze, the rioters punctured or
cut open their water hoses. National Guard
troops again cleared the campus. The hostility
intensified on Sunday, when the crowd failed to
disperse on orders to do so. The Ohio Riot Act
was read to them and tear gas was fired. The
hostile rioters regrouped and moved into town,
where the Riot Act was again read to them and
tear gas was again used. Several persons,
including guardsmen, were injured.
By noon on Monday, May 4, approximately
2,000 demonstrators gathered and were ordered
to disperse. They respo nded with curses and
rocks. Eventually, tear gas w as again employed
but was ineffectual in the afternoon breeze. As
the crowd grew more agitated, it was herded by
guardsmen toward an athletic practice field
surrounded by fence. After being pelted with
rocks, the guardsmen receded but were followed
by angry demonstrators, some as close as 20
yards. Guardsmen turned and fired several shots

toward the demonstrators, felling several of
Students approach
one of the four
classmates slain when
National Guard
troops opened fire on
protesters during the
May 1970 riots at
Kent State University.
UPI/CORBIS-BETTMANN.
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3
RD E DITION
KENT STATE STUDENT KILLINGS 149
them. Within seconds, four persons lay dying
and nine more were wounded; all 13 were
students. A University ambulance moved
through the crowd, announcing over a public
address system that demonstrators were to pack
their things and leave the campus immediately.
Shock and disbelief of the tragic events
spread worldwide within hours. By the follow-
ing morning, James A. Rhodes, governor of
Ohio, had called in the
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION
(FBI). RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES
, invited six Kent student
representatives to meet with him after the ir
meeting with a state congressman.

On May 21, 1970, Attorney General
JOHN
MITCHELL
announced that the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
would investigate the shootings to determine
whether there had been criminal violations of
federal laws. Two weeks later, the Ohio legisla-
ture passed a new campus riot bill providing for
swift action and stiff penalties for those charged
in connection with disturbances at state-assisted
colleges and universities.
By June 10 the first private lawsuit for
WRONGFUL DEATH was filed in federal court by the
father of a killed student. Governor Rhodes and
two Ohio National Guard commanders were
named as defendants. The parent also filed a
second suit against the state of Ohio in local
Portage County Court of
COMMON PLEAS. A few
days later, the White House announced the
naming of a special commission to investigate
campus unrest at Kent, as well as the deaths of
two black students at Jackson State University in
Mississippi.
In September 1970, the President’s Com-
mission on Campus Unrest released its general
report, which found the National Guard shoot-
ings “ unwarranted.” The report also found that
the “violent and criminal” actions by students
contributed to the tragedy and caused them

to bear responsibility for deaths and injuries
of fellow students. According to Kent State
University Library archives, the report concluded
that “The Kent State tragedy must surely mark
the last time that loaded rifles are issued as a
matter of course to guardsmen confronting
student demonstrators.”
A special state
GRAND JURY issued indictments
against 25 persons in October 1970, but found,
in its 18-page report, that the guardsmen were
not subject to criminal prosecution because they
“fired their
WEAPONS in the honest and sincere
belief that they would suffer serious bodily
injury had they not done so.” A federal district
judge upheld the indictments against the
individuals in January 1971. However, several
private lawsuits against the state of Ohio were
dismissed on grounds of
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.
Ohio’s Eighth District Court of Appeals then
ordered a lower court to consider on the merits
any suits in which liability was based on the
actions of individual Ohio state agents.
The Sixth
CIRCUIT COURT of Appeals, mean-
while, upheld the Portage County Court’s
GAG
ORDER

prohibiting discussion of the shootings by
300 witnesses and others connected with the
grand jury indictments. It also upheld the federal
grand jury’s 25 indictments and the district
court’s order to destroy the grand jury’s report as
prejudicial.
Going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
was a challenge to Ohio’s new anti-riot laws, but
the Court, in a 6–1 decision, took no action and
refused to delay scheduled trials. In November
1972, the first student was tried and convicted of
the
MISDEMEANOR of interfering with a fireman.
The jury could not reach a
VERDICT on FELONY
charges of ARSON, rioting, and throwing rocks at
firemen. A few more students pleaded guilty to
first-degree riot charges. Prosecutors then
dropped all charges against 20 remaining
defendants on grounds of lack of evidence,
having put their strongest cases first and not
being successful in any felony convictions.
In May 1972 the
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION
(ACLU) filed several suits totaling $12
million in damages in federal district court
against the Ohio National Guard and the Stat e
of Ohio. More than a year later, in August 1973,
the Justice Department announced that it would

reopen its investigation. Also in 1973, a federal
grand jury reviewed Justice Department evi-
dence and issued indictments against eight
former guardsmen, officially charging them
with violating the
CIVIL RIGHTS of students. In
1974 a federal district judge acquitted the
guardsmen of all charges, ruling that U.S.
prosecutors failed to prove willful or intentional
deprivation of civil rights.
Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court issued
a decision related to the tragedy. In the 1974
case of Scheur v. Rhodes, the Court reversed a
lower court that found state officials immune
from private suits by the parents of slain
students. In 197 5 all individual ci vil suits were
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
150 KENT STATE STUDENT KILLINGS
consolidated into one case, Krause v. Rhodes.
Following a 15-week trial, a federal jury, by a
9–3 vote, acquitted all 29 defendants, including
Ohio Governor James Rhodes. The decision was
appealed and in 1977 the U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ordered a retrial,
based on evidence that at least one member of
the jury had been threatened and assaulted. In
January 1979 an
OUT-OF-COURT SETTLEMENT was
reached in all of the consolidated civil cases and
approved by the Ohio State Controlling Board.

The $675,000 settlement was dispersed
among 13 plaintiffs, the largest amount going
to an injured student who was paralyzed in the
incident. According to Kent University Library
archived documents, the compensation was
accompanied by a statement from the defen-
dants that the May 4, 1970, tragedy “should not
have occurred.” The statement also noted that
the Sixth Circuit had upheld as “lawful” the
university’s ban on rallies and its May 4 order
for the students to disperse. The statement
concluded, “We hope that the agreement to end
this litigation will help assuage the tragic
moments regarding that sad day.”
FURTHER READINGS
Caputo, Philip. 2005. 13 Seconds: A Look Back at the Kent
State Shootings. Detroit: Chamberlain.
Kent State Univ. Libraries, Special Collections and Archives
Web site. 1995. Legal Chronology May 5, 1970–January
4, 1979. Available online at t.
edu/page/10300; website home page: http://www.
library.kent.edu (accessed August 5, 2009).
Koestler-Grack, Rachel A. 2005. The Kent State Tragedy.
Edina, MN: ABDO & Daughters.
CROSS REFERENCES
Protest; Riot; Vietnam War.
KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS
See VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY RESOLVES.
KEOGH PLAN
A retirement account that allows workers who are

self-employed to set aside a percentage of their net
earnings for retirement income.
Also known as H.R. 10 plans, Keogh plans
provide workers who are self-employed with
savings opportunities that are similar to those
under company pension plans or individual
retirement accounts (IRAs). However, Keogh
plans allow for a much higher level of contribu-
tion, depending on the type of plan selected.
Keogh plans were established in 1962 by the
Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act
(26 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.) and modified by
provisions in the
EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME
SECURITY ACT
of 1974 (29 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.), the
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (26 U.S.C.
A. § 1 et seq.), and the Tax Equity and Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 1982 (26 U.S.C.A. § 1 et
seq.). Keogh plans are considered tax shelters
because Keogh contributions, which are deduct-
ible from a taxpayer’s gross income, and the
earnings they generate are considered tax free
until they are withdrawn when the contributor
retires or dies. At the time of withdrawal, the
money is taxable as ordinary income.
Self-employed individuals are defined as
people who pay their own
SOCIAL SECURITY taxes
on their net income. This net income cannot

include any investment earnings, wages, or
salary. The self-employment does not have to
be full-time; in fact, workers who are self-
employed on the side can have a separate IRA or
other retirement account in the pension plan of
the company that pays their wages or salary.
Self-employed taxpayers who own a busi-
ness and set up a Keogh plan for themselves are
also required to set up a Keogh plan for each
employee who has worked for their company
for at least 1,000 hours over a period of three or
more years. The lev el of contributions allowed
depends on the type of Keogh plan chosen.
Four different types of Keogh plans are
available: profit sharing, money-purchase pen-
sion, paired, and defined benefit. Profit sharing
plans are most often set up by small businesses
because they require a minimal contribution by
employees. The maximum amount that may be
contributed to this type of plan is 13.04 percent
of an employee’s net income, up to a total of
$22,500 per year.
Money-purchase pension plans are often
used by high-income earners because the
percentage contribution is fixed on an annual
basis; the amount can be changed only once a
year or through termination of the plan. This
plan’s contribution limit is 20 percent of net
income, up to a total of $30,000 per year.
Paired plans merge the benefit of the high

contributions allowed by money-purchase pen-
sion plans with the flexibility of profit sharing
plans. For example, an employee may make a
money-purchase plan contrib ution of 7 percent
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
KEOGH PLAN 151
and then contribute between 0 and 13 percent
of her or his remaining net income to a profit
sharing plan. With this plan, an employee can
make the maximum 20 percent contribution
the money purchase plan allows but still be able
to change the contribution amount throughout
the year.
Defined-benefit plans require a minimum
contribution of $30,000 per year, so are not
available to everyone who is self-employed.
Generally, contributors to these plans will
employ an actuary to determine the amount
of money to be contributed.
Contributors to all Keogh plans are eligible
to begin receiving benefits when they are age
59
1
2
. At this point the payments are taxed as
income. If any portion of the money in a Keogh
plan is withdrawn early (before age 59
1
2
), a 10

percent penalty tax is impos ed, in addition to
the normal income tax. A 15 percent penalty tax
is imposed if the contrib utor does not start
receiving benefits before age 70
1
2
.
Money can be collected from a Keogh plan in
several different ways. The two most common
ways are lump sums and installments. Lump-
sum payments are subject to regular income
taxes. However, with a tax break called forward
averaging, just one tax is paid. This tax is
determined by calculating the total amount that
would have been paid if the money had been
collected in installments. This advantage reduces
the amount of total income tax paid on the plan.
Installment distributions can be set up in
several different ways and for various lengths.
For example, they can be paid annually for ten
years or annually for the number of years the
recipient is expected to live. Each distribution is
taxed as ordinary income.
In the event that the contributor dies before
reaching age 59
1
2
, the contributor’s heirs will
receive the money that is in the Keogh plan,
minus income taxes. In this case no penalty

taxes are imposed for early withdrawal.
As a general rule of thumb, Keogh plan
accounts are judgment proof. Their funds can be
seized or garnished only in certain situations. For
instance, the government can take Keogh funds
to pay personal back taxes owed, and a spouse,
ex-spouse, or children may be declared entitled
to receive a portion of Keogh money by a court
order if the contributor owes alimony or
CHILD
SUPPORT
.
FURTHER READINGS
Cheeks, James E. 1989. The Dow Jones–Irwin Guide to
Keoghs. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones–Irwin.
Jones, Sally M. 1998. “Maximizing Deductible Contribu-
tions to a One-Participant Retirement Plan.” The
Journal of Taxation 88, no. 2 (February).
“Keogh Plan Exempt from Bankruptcy Estate, Appeals
Court Rules.” 1998. Tax Management Financial Plan-
ning Journal 14 (January 20): 15–6.
Tyson, Eric. 2006. Personal Finance for Dummies. Indiana-
polis: Wiley.
v
KEVORKIAN, JACK
Jack Kevorkian has become the most well-
known advocate in the United States for the
cause of physician-assisted
SUICIDE. Having
helped an estimated 130 terminally or chroni-

cally ill individuals kill themselves between 1990
and 1999, Kevorki an sparked a national debate
on the ethical issues involved in
EUTHANASIA,or
mercy killing. Although Kevorkian has argued
that his actions have prevented needless suffer-
ing for patients in pain and that it has allowed
them to die with dignity, others see his work as
a violation of the medical profession’s most
cherished ethical principles affirming life over
death. Working in an area of vexing ethical
issues, Kevorkian was championed as a breaker
of unnecessary taboos surrounding death. His
crusade ended in 1999 when a Michigan state
court convicted him of second-degree
MURDER.
Kevorkian became a focus of national
attention in 1990, after he assisted the suicide
of Janet Adkins, a 45-year-old woman who was
suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, a degenera-
tive disease of the brain that causes memory loss
and intellectual impairment. Adkins had heard
through the media about Kevorkian’sinvention
of a “suicide machine” that allowed individuals
who were ill to administer a lethal dose of poison
to themselves. The machine, which Kevorkian
assembled out of $45 worth of materials,
consisted of three dripping bottles that delivered
successive doses of three fluids: a harmless saline
solution; a painkiller; and, finally, a poison,

potassium chloride. When Adkins contacted
Kevorkian about using the machine on her,
Kevorkian agreed to assist her. Kevorkian
diagnosed Adkins as suffering from Alzheimer’s
and arranged to perform the
ASSISTED SUICIDE in a
public park, in his rusting, 1968 Volkswagen van.
After Kevorkian had inserted an intravenous
needle into her arm, Adkins pressed a red button
that caused the machine to administer the
painkiller and then the poison. Within five
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
152 KEVORKIAN, JACK
minutes, Adkins died of heart failure. Within
days, Kevorkian had become a national media
celebrity, appearing on such television shows as
Nightline, Geraldo, and Good Morning, America.
This first of Kevorkian’s assisted suicides
illustrated the objections that many observers
raise toward Kevorkian’s methods. Although she
had begun to show early signs of Alzheimer’s,
Adkins was otherwise in good health and was not
terminally ill; she committed suicide more out of
fear of future suffering than out of current
suffering. She had joined the Hemlock Society—
an organization that advocates voluntary eutha-
nasia for terminally ill patients—even before she
became ill. In addition, Adkins’sAlzheimer’s
might have impaired her ability to make
decisions. Some observers wondered whether

she was also suffering from depression, a treatable
mental illness. Moreover, in cases in which a
terminally ill patient has expressed a desire to die,
established rules of medical ethics require that
two independent doctors must confirm that the
patient’s condition is unbearable and irreversible;
Kevorkian had ignored this requirement.
Kevorkian was charged with first-degree
murder in the Adkins case, but a judge ruled
that prosecutors failed to show that Kevorkian
had planned and carried out Adkins’s death.
Attempts to prosecute Kevorkian were ham-
pered by Michigan’s lack of any law against
physician-assisted suicide. Most other states
have laws that make this act a
FELONY.
In early 1991 a Michigan judge issued an
injunction barring Kevorkian’s use of the suicide
machine, and in the same year, the state of
Michigan suspended his medical license. Kevor-
kian defied such legal actions and continued to
help ailing people to end their lives. Now that he
no longer could prescribe drugs, Kevorkian
assisted with suicides by providing a contraption
that administered carbon monoxide through a
gas mask. As he practiced assisted suicide and
published on the subject—describing it in his
own terms as “medicide” or “planned death”—
he continued to be surrounded by controversy.
For example, an autopsy that was performed on

the body of the second person whom he had
helped to commit suicide, a patient who had
complained of a painful pelvic disease, found no
evidence of any disease.
Jack Kevorkian.
GETTY IMAGES
Jack Kevorkian 1928–
▼▼
▼▼
1925
2000
1975
1950
◆
❖
◆
◆
◆
1928 Born,
Pontiac, Mich.
1939–45
World War II
1950–53
Korean War
1961–73
Vietnam War
◆
◆
◆
◆

◆
◆
◆
◆
1998 Michigan ballot Proposal B,
which would have legalized
euthanasia, was defeated
1952 Earned M.D. from University of
Michigan, began internship in pathology
1959
The Story
of Dissection
published
1960 Medical Research and the Death Penalty published
1960–66
Worked as
general
pathologist
at Pontiac
(Mich.)
General
Hospital
1970–76 Worked
as chief of
pathology
at Saratoga
General Hospital
in Detroit
1990 Janet Adkins became
first person to commit

suicide with Kevorkian’s help
1991 Prescription Medicide:
The Goodness of Planned
Death published; Michigan
suspended his medical license
1992 Michigan Legislature passed bill outlawing assisted suicide
1994 Failed in attempt to place assisted-suicide ballot initiative
to voters in Michigan; acquitted in two trials for 1993 arrests
1999 Convicted of
second-degree
murder and delivery
of a controlled
substance;
sentenced to 10–25
years in prison
1998 Acknowledged assisting in at least 130 suicides; 60 Minutes broadcast videotape of Kevorkian administering
lethal injection to terminally ill patient Thomas Youk; charged in Michigan with murder of Youk
1996 Acquitted in two separate trials of four assisted suicides
◆
2008 Ran
(unsuccessfully)
for U.S. Congress
as an independent
2007 Released on parole;
promised not to assist in
any more suicides
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
KEVORKIAN, JACK 153
In 1992 the Michigan Legislature passed a
bill outlawing assisted suicide, designed specifi-

cally to stop Kevorkian’s activities (Mich. Comp.
Laws § 752.1021). This law was used to charge
Kevorkian with assisting in the death of Thomas
W. Hyde, Jr., in August 1993. Kevorkian was
jailed twice that year, in November and Decem-
ber. During his second jail stay, he embarked on
an 18-day fast in which he protested his arrest by
drinking only juice. His bail was reduced and was
paid by Geoffrey Fieger, a flamboyant lawyer
who has done a great deal for Kevorkian’scause
as his friend and legal counsel. Kevorkian was
found not guilty.
Kevorkian then attempted to place before
Michigan voters a ballot initiative, Movement
Ensuring the Right to Choose for Yourself
(MERCY), which sought to amend the Michigan
Constitution in order to guarantee competent
adults the right to request and to receive medical
assistance in taking their own lives. However, he
failed to garner enough signatures to put the
initiative on the 1994 ballot. In December 1994
the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the law
that had made assisted suicide a crime, and in
1995 the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear
Kevorkian’sappeal.
Kevorkian continued to assist in suicides
even as prosecutors in his home county
unsuccessfully attempted to convict him on
charges of murder or assisted suicide. On May
14, 1996, an Oakland County

CIRCUIT COURT jury
again acquitted Kevorkian of assisted suicide. In
that case, the prosecution had argued that
assisted suicide was a crime under Michigan
common law. After the acquittal, county
prosecutors suggested then that it was unlikely
that they would take Kevorkian to trial again.
In his actions and his statements, Kevorkian
flouted the ethical standards of the medical
profession on the issue of assisted suicide. The
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, a national profes-
sional association of physicians, specifically
forbids the practice of physic ian-assisted sui-
cide. Many doctors deplore Kevorkian’s tech-
niques and see them as endangering the trust
that must exist between physician and patient.
Even the Hemlock Society opposes Kevorkian’s
actions, citing his lack of typical procedural
precautions.
In 1998 Kevorkian allowed the CBS televi-
sion program 60 Minutes to tape the lethal
injection of Thomas Youk, a patient who was
suffering from Lou Gehrig’s disease. After the
broadcast, county prosecutors again brought a
second-degree murder charge against Kevor-
kian, who served as his own counsel in his trial.
On March 26, 1999, a jury in Oakland County
convicted him of second-degree murder and
illegal delivery of a controlled substance. He was
sentenced in April 1999 to 10 to 25 years in

prison. During the next three years, he sought
to appeal the conviction to appeals court in
Michigan. However, the Michigan Court of
Appeals affirmed the conviction, and the
Michigan Supreme Court declined to review
the appellate court’s decision. Lawyers repre-
senting Kevorkian sought to appeal the case to
the U.S. Supreme Court, but it declined to
review the case. He spent eight years in prison
and was paroled in June of 2007 after promising
not to assist in any more suicides.
Kevorkian’s efforts in the cause of assisted
suicide were only the latest in a series of his
unconventional, even morbid, attempts to make
a name for himself in the area of medical
research. Kevorkian had earned the nickname
Dr. Death in 1956, only four years after obtaining
his medical degree, when he began making what
he called death rounds at the Detroit-area
hospital where he was employed. During those
rounds,heexamineddeadbodiesinorderto
collect evidence supporting his contention that
the time of a person’sdeathcouldbedetermined
from the condition of the person’s eyes.
Kevorkian caused more controversy—and lost
his job at the University of Michigan—in 1960,
when he published the book Medical Research
and the Death Penalty, in which he argued for the
vivisection (i.e., the conduct of medical experi-
ments on live subjects) of prisoners who had

been sentenced to death. Claiming it would be “a
unique privilege to be able to experiment on
a doomed human being,” he outlined a plan in
which the prisoner-subject would be anesthe-
tized at the time of execution, then used for
scientific experiments lasting hours or months,
and finally executed using a lethal overdose.
According to Kevorkian, this practice would
create both a more painless execution and greater
advances in medical research. The use of
condemned prisoners for medical experimenta-
tion and organ donation has remained a
consistent theme for Kevorkian. His 1991 book
Prescription: Medicide: The Goodness of Planned
Death rehashes these same arguments while also
making a case for assisted suicide. In another
THE VOLUNTARY
SELF
-ELIMINATION OF
INDIVIDUAL AND
MORTALLY DISEASED
OR CRIPPLED LIVES
TAKEN COLLECTIVELY
CAN ONLY ENHANCE
THE PRESERVATION
OF PUBLIC HEALTH
AND WELFARE
.
—JACK KEVORKIAN
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION

154 KEVORKIAN, JACK
unsuccessful venture, Kevorkian re-created
experiments in which Soviet scientists had taken
blood from recently deceased individuals and
transfused it to live patients.
In a later article that set forth his plans for
assisted suicide, Kevorkian suggested setting up
suicide clinics: “The acceptance of planned
death implies the establishment of well-staffed
and well-organized medical clinics (‘obitoria’)
where terminally ill patients can opt for death
under controlled circumstances of compassion
and decorum.” As his use of the terms obitoria
and medicide indicate, Kevorkian has a pen-
chant for coining words. He dubbed his first
suicide machine alternately a mercitron or a
thanatron—the latter from the Greek word for
death, thanatos—and has used the word obitiatry
to indicate the medical specialization in death.
Kevorkian was born May 26, 1928, in
Pontiac, Michigan. Named Murad Kevorkian
at birth by his Armenian immigrant par ents, he
was the first of his family to attend college. He
attended the University of Michigan Medical
School and did his internship at Detroit-area
hospitals. Acquaintances of Kevorkian testify to
his prodigious intellect. The retired physician
has demonstrated talent as a writer, painter, and
composer. A series of 18 paintings that he made
on such grisly topics as

GENOCIDE, hanging, and
cannibalism created a stir in Michigan during
the 1960s. Kevorkian also has commented that
his unconventional ideas have been influenced
by the history of his Armenian ancestors,
particularly the genocide in which 1.5 million
Armenians were killed during
WORLD WAR I by
the Turks. Kevorkian has never married.
Although many deplore his actions, Kevor-
kian has increased public awarene ss of some of
the most difficult ethical issues surrounding
DEATH AND DYING. With medical technology’s
increasing ability to prolong life have come
more situations that bring great pain and
suffering. Ke vorkian’s efforts to ass ist people
in their deaths, although often falling short of
accepted professional s tandards of diagnosis
and care, have sparked a needed discussion on
these issues. Nevertheless, even supporters of
euthanasia sought to distance themselves from
Kevorkian’s practices after his convictions,
drawing distinctions between his practices and
their own beliefs in physician-assisted suicide.
Since he was paroled in 2007, Kevorkian has
spoken to large audiences, addressing a crowd
of 4,867 people at the University of Florida in
January 2008. In February 2009 Kevorkian
lectured to students and faculty at Nova
Southeastern University in Davie, Florida,

discussing tyranny, the criminal justice system
and politics. At the end of this lecture, Dr.
Kevorkian unveiled an American Flag with a
swastika where the field of stars should reside.
He claimed the flag was intended to shock and
remind everyone that this is where America is
headed if changes are not made.
In 2008 Kevorkian ran for the U.S. Congress
to represent Michigan’s 9th Congressional Dis-
trict, as an independent. His efforts did not get
him elected, but he did receive 9,000 votes.
FURTHER READINGS
Betzold, Michael. 1993. Appointment with Dr. Death. Troy,
Mich.: Momentum.
Goldsworthy, Joan. 1991. “Jack Kevorkian.” In Newsmakers:
1991 Cumulation.
Huber, Stephen W. 2002. “High Court Won’t Hear Appeal
by Kevorkian.” The Oakland Press.
Kevorkian, Jack. 1991. Prescription Medicide: The Goodness of
Planned Death. New York: Prometheus Books.
Murphy, Brian. 2000. “Jack Kevorkian Continues Crusade
from Prison Cell.” The Seattle Times.
CROSS REFERENCE
Physician-Assisted Suicide
KEY NUMBERS
®
A system devised by West Group involving the
classification of legal subjects that are organized
within their publications according to specific
topics and subtopics. Each topic and subtopic is

given a key number that consists of one or more
digits preceded by the symbol of a key assigned to
each individual classification.
A particular point of law can be traced
through different law books by following the
cases listed under a Key Number in each series.
West Group, formerly the West Publishing
Company, developed the Key Number System
of Classification during the decade spanning
1897–1906. The system is a valuable research
tool because once the topic and Key Number
have been located, a researcher has ready access
to all American cases that have litigated that
issue provided those cases have been reported.
More than 425 Key Numbers in the system are
arranged by subject matter under seven main
headings—persons, property, contracts, torts,
crimes, remedies, and government—and 32
subdivisions of the system.
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
KEY NUMBERS
®
155
Key Numbers are also a vital component of
Westlaw,
TM
an on-line resource for conducting
COMPUTER-ASSISTED LEGAL RESEARCH. The Key
Numbers employed on Westlaw are identical
to those used in the print counterparts to the

on-line system.
FURTHER READINGS
Kunz, Christina L., et al. 2008. The Process of Legal Research.
7th ed. Frederick, MD: Aspen.
KEYCITE
TM
An interactive, computer-assisted citatory service
that allows legal researchers to verify the validity of
a case and to find all references that have cited
that case as authority.
Every day, lawyers are asked by their clients
to persuade judges to rule in their favor. One way
in which they try to accomplish this task is by
citing prior legal decisions, called precedent, that
support their clients’ positions. Depending on its
factual similarity to a pending legal dispute, a
relevant precedent can control or influence the
outcome of a case. Consequently, lawyers look
for ways to make precedents appear more
persuasive, while courts look for ways to
determine which precedents are relevant, impor-
tant, or controlling in their jurisdictions.
KeyCite is designed to expedite the process
of assessing a case’s presidential value. Released
by West Group in July 1997, KeyCite was
initially available only through Westmate, an
online software package that allows subscribers
to Westlaw,
TM
West’s computer-assisted re-

search service, to connect through their person-
al computer modems over a telephone line into
a central mainframe computer located in Eagan,
Minnesota. By the end of 1997, however,
KeyCite was also made available to customers
over the
INTERNET and through West Group’s
CD-ROM software package called Premise.
TM
The majority of users now use the service
through Westlaw on the Internet.
KeyCite uses graphical markers to signify
the status or history of a case. A red flag warns
that a case is no longer good law for at least one
of the points it contains, meaning that a case has
been reversed, vacated, superseded, overruled,
or abrogated in some respect. A yellow flag
warns that a case has some negative history,
meaning that a point of law contained in a case
has been amended, modified, limited, or called
into doubt, but not completely eviscerated.
A blue letter H indicates that a case has some
history, but no known negative history, which
generally means that a case contains a point of
law that has been appealed, affirmed, discussed,
relied on as precedent, or otherwise cited as
relevant authority.
KeyCite also employs graphical markers to
signify the extent to which courts have
subsequently relied on a case. Stars are used

torevealtheextenttowhichonecasediscusses
another: four stars indicate that a case has been
“examined,” meaning that the cited case has
received m ore than a printed page of treatment
in anothe r decision; three stars indicate that a
case has been “discussed,” meaning that the
cited case has received more than a paragraph
of treatment in another decision, but less than
a full printed page; two stars indicate that a
case has been “cited,” meaning that the cited
case has received less than a paragraph of
treatment in another decision; and one star
indicates that a case has been “mentioned,”
meaning that the cited case has been briefly
referenced in another decision.
Quotation marks are used in KeyCite
displays to signify that a cited case has been
quoted by another court. Based on the idea that
cases cited more frequently tend to be more
significant, KeyCite tallies citation counts for
every case within its coverage. Although KeyCite
coverage is not comprehensive, it is available for
a growing number of types of authorities.
Beginning coverage for state case citations varies
according to jurisdiction. Citator coverage now
also covers state and federal statutes.
KeyCite integrates many of the features
already found on Westlaw. KeyCite results can
be limited to a particular date range, so that
only the most recent cases citing a particular

precedent are displayed. They also can b e
restricted by jurisdiction, so lawyers in one
state can focus on legal authority in their home
jurisdictions, without bein g side tracked b y
cases from foreign jurisdictions. Finally, Key-
Cite allows headnotes (i.e., summaries of legal
rules and principles established by courts that
are added by West Group editors to cases
published in the National Reporter System)
from particular cases to be traced through
subsequent opinions.
FURTHER READINGS
“LexisNexis and Westlaw Features Compared.” 2009.
Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. Available online at
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
156 KEYCITE
TM
/>lawpubs/LexisNexisandWestlawFeaturesCompared.html;
website h ome page: http://www. law.csuohio.edu (accessed
September 5, 2009).
Teshima, Daryl, 1999. “Cite Wars: Shepard’s v. KeyCite.”
Law Office Computing 9 (Oct-Nov).
Westlaw Advantage: Keycite web site. Available online
at />website home page: (accessed
August 5, 2009).
CROSS REFERENCES
Citator; Westlaw®.
KEYES, WADE, JR.
See CONFEDERATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL.
KICKBACK

The seller’s return of part of the purchase price of
an item to a buyer or buyer’s representative for the
purpose of inducing a purchase or improperly
influencing future purchases.
Under federal law kickbacks involving
government officials or funds provided by the
government are illegal. Kickbacks between a
contractor and a government official or govern-
ment employee are prosecuted under the federal
bribery statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 201. Kickbacks
between private contractors working under
a federal contract are prosecuted under 41
U.S.C.A. §§ 51–58, otherwise known as the
Anti-Kickback Enforcement Act of 1986. Kick-
backs to employees or officials of foreign
governments are prohibited under the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (15 U.S.C.A.
§ 78dd-1 et seq.). Most states have commercial
bribery statutes prohibiting various forms of
kickbacks.
One notable public figure accused of profit-
ing from a kickback scheme was Spiro T. Agnew,
vice
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES under RICHARD
M
. NIXON. While governor of Maryland, Agnew
oversaw a system in which engineering firms
working under state construction contracts paid
kickbacks that went 25 percent to the state
official who arranged the deal, 25 percent to the

official who brought the deal to Agnew, and 50
percent directly to Agnew himself. In another
arrangement Agnew demanded a kickback of five
cents for every pack of cigarettes sold in vending
machines located in Maryland state buildings.
These kickbacks were secret, illegal, and not
reported on Agnew’s income tax returns. Agnew
continued to collect them after he became vice
president. He resigned the vice presidency in
1973 as part of a
PLEA bargain that allowed him to
avoid going to jail for income
TAX EVASION in
connection with those kickbacks.
Though many types of kickbacks are
prohibited under federal and state law, kick-
backs are not illegal per se. If a kickback does
not specifically violate federal or state laws and
such kickbacks are made to clients throughout
the industry, the kickback may be normal,
legal, and even tax deductible. According to
section 162(a) of the
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (26
U.S.C.A. § 162), “all the ordinary and necessary
expenses” that an individual or business incurs
during the taxable year are dedu ctible, including
kickbacks as long as the kickbacks are not illegal
and are not made to an official or employee of
the federal government or to an official or
employee of a foreign government.

On several occasions the courts have ruled
on the deductibility of specific legal kickbacks. In
most cases the courts have found these kickbacks
to be not deductible because they are not
ordinary in the sense of usual and customary.
In Bertoloni Trucking Co. v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, 736 F.2d 1120, 84-2 U.S.T.C. P
9591 (1984), however, the Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit interpreted the term ordinary
quite differently. Reviewing Supreme Court cases
dealing with the interpretation of ordinary in
Spiro Agnew, vice
president under
Richard Nixon, was
accused of taking
kickbacks while he
was governor of
Maryland and later
vice president. On
October 10, 1973, he
chose to resign from
office rather than face
a conviction for tax
evasion.
AP IMAGES
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3
RD E DITION
KICKBACK 157