Digital Commons Network^™

Revisiting Dura Pharmaceuticals: Loss Causation & Criminal Securities Fraud Sentencing, Todd W. Barnet

University of Denver Criminal Law Review

No abstract provided.

Interpreting Intentions: Evidence For Cross-Language Influences In Bilinguals, Maziyah Mohamed

Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository

In Malay, accidental actions are marked with the prefix -ter. Malay speakers typically assume a deliberate intent when the prefix is absent. I investigated whether Malay-English bilinguals are more likely than English monolinguals to interpret actions in English sentences as deliberate when they are not clearly indicated as being accidental. In Experiment 1, Malay speakers completed a recognition memory task. The results showed that Malay speakers remembered unintentionality accurately. This accuracy in remembering unintentionality suggests that Malay speakers encode the intentions of others. In Experiment 2, participants completed a cross-modal priming task. They first heard scenarios in which a …

Taking Multiple Regression Analysis To Task: A Review Of Mindware: Tools For Smart Thinking, By Richard Nisbett (2015), Jason Makansi

Numeracy

Richard Nisbett. 2015. Mindware: Tools for Smart Thinking.(New York, NY: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux). 336 pp. ISBN: 9780374536244

Nisbett, a psychologist, may not achieve his stated goal of teaching readers to “effortlessly” extend their common sense when it comes to quantitative analysis applied to everyday issues, but his critique of multiple regression analysis (MRA) in the middle chapters of Mindware is worth attention from, and contemplation by, the QL/QR and Numeracy community. While in at least one other source, Nisbett’s critique has been called a “crusade” against MRA, what he really advocates is that it not be used as …

Equitable Compensation And The Brickenden “Rule” After Winsta Holding Pte Ltd And Another V Sim Poh Ping And Others, Nicholas Liu

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The Brickenden rule, which was thought to provide an exception to the requirement of but-for causation of loss in equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duty, has recently been rejected by the Singapore High Court in Winsta Holding Pte Ltd and another v Sim Poh Ping and others (Winsta Holding). This case comment suggests that although the substantive position arrived at in Winsta Holding is a sound one, it should not entail a rejection of the Brickenden rule. Properly understood, the Brickenden “rule” is consistent with the requirement that the principal prove but-for causation.

Surviving The “Pretext” Stage Of Mcdonnell Douglas: Should Employment Discrimination And Retaliation Plaintiffs Prove “Motivating Factors” Or But-For Causation?, Alexandra Zabinski

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

No abstract provided.

The Role Of Fault In § 1983 Municipal Liability, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, local governments are not vicariously liable for constitutional violations committed by their employees. Those governments, however, are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations committed by "policymaking" officials. In the face of these two principles, courts have struggled with cases in which an underling commits a constitutional violation and the claim of municipal liability is based on a policymaker's failure to prevent it. The government can be liable in these "indirect-effect" cases for a policymaker's "deliberate indifference" to safeguarding constitutional rights, a standard that demands an even greater showing of culpability than …

Digitizing Brandenburg: Common Law Drift Toward A Causal Theory Of Imminence, J. Remy Green

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s Brandenburg v. Ohio test provides an exception to the First Amendment’s broad guarantee of freedom of speech. Where speech is (1) directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action, the First Amendment withdraws its promise of protection. Thus, where the “imminence” of lawless action cannot be shown, free speech cannot be restricted. Since Brandenburg, Courts have applied a test for imminence that turns on proximity in space and in time — that is, the test evaluates how spatiotemporally imminent lawless activity is. In this Article, I argue …

Tort Law—The Wrongful Demise Of But For Causation, Tory A. Weigand

Western New England Law Review

The observation by Professor Dobbs that “[t]he substantial factor test is not so much a test as an incantation” remains compelling. The continued and widespread use of “substantial factor” in lieu of “but for” as the predominate means of defining causation in any multiple defendant or multiple cause case is troubling. “Substantial factor” was never intended to supplant “but for” in such cases. This overuse and misunderstanding, which is otherwise accentuated by the Third Restatement’s causal set notion, poses the significant risk that causation can be found when the defendant’s conduct is neither a “but for” nor sufficient cause of …

The Puzzle Of Inciting Suicide, Guyora Binder, Luis E. Chiesa

Journal Articles

In 2017, a Massachusetts court convicted Michelle Carter of manslaughter for encouraging the suicide of Conrad Roy by text message, but imposed a sentence of only 15 months. The conviction was unprecedented in imposing homicide liability for verbal encouragement of apparently voluntary suicide. Yet if Carter killed, her purpose that Roy die arguably merited liability for murder and a much longer sentence. This Article argues that our ambivalence about whether and how much to punish Carter reflects suicide’s dual character as both a harm to be prevented and a choice to be respected. As such, the Carter case requires us …

Common Law Tort Of Negligence As A Tool For Deconstructing Positive Obligations Under The European Convention On Human Rights, Vladislava Stoyanova

Vladislava Stoyanova