Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Lawyers, Guns, And Money: Why The Tiahrt Amendment’S Ban On The Admissibility Of Atf Trace Data In State Court Actions Violates The Commerce Clause And The Tenth Amendment, Colin Miller
Colin Miller
The Tiahrt Amendment provides in relevant part that ATF trace data "shall be inadmissible in evidence, and shall not be used, relied on, or disclosed in any manner, nor shall testimony or other evidence be permitted based on the data, in a civil action in any State (including the District of Columbia) or Federal court..." This Amendment has hamstrung cities and localities which, in an effort to combat crime with civil litigation, have brought actions against the gun industry sounding in public nuisance, with trace data being crucial to the success of such actions. Because this Amendment regulates state as …
Even Better Than The Real Thing: How Courts Have Been Anything But Liberal In Finding Genuine Questions Raised As To The Authenticity Of Originals Under Rule 1003, Colin Miller
Colin Miller
In the common law days, parties seeking to prove the contents of documents were required to produce the original documents or account for their nonproduction. Pursuant to the Best Evidence Rule, if such parties neither produced the originals nor accounted for their nonproduction, courts prevented them from proving their contents through secondary evidence such as handwritten copies or testimony. With the invention of new technologies such as the process of xerography, however, states in the twentieth century began enacting exceptions to the Best Evidence Rule which allowed for the admission of duplicates created without manual transcription even when proponents could …
“Manifest” Destiny?: How Some Courts Have Fallaciously Come To Require A Greater Showing Of Congressional Intent For Jurisdictional Exhaustion Than They Require For Preemption, Colin Miller
Colin Miller
Abstract for Colin Miller, “Manifest” Destiny?: How Some Courts Have Fallaciously Come To Require A Greater Showing Of Congressional Intent For Jurisdictional Exhaustion Than They Require For Preemption Congress engages in preemption when it enacts federal legislation that supersedes any existing state and local laws in a particular field and proscribes any future state and local regulation of that field. Because preemption repeals state and local legislative authority over traditional areas of state law, courts have understandably required that preemptive legislation evince “clear and manifest” Congressional intent to supersede state and local legislation. Conversely, when Congress includes a jurisdictional exhaustion …