Digital Commons Network^™

‘I Will Control Your Mind’: The International Regulation Of Brain-Hacking, Thibault Moulin

San Diego International Law Journal

In the near future, the use of neurotechnologies—like brain-computer interfaces and brain stimulation—could become widespread. It will not only be used to help persons with disabilities or illness, but also by members of the armed forces and in everyday life (e.g., for entertainment and gaming). However, recent studies suggested that it is possible to hack into neural devices to obtain information, inflict pain, induce mood change, or influence movements. This Article anticipates three scenarios which may be challenging in the future—i.e., brain hacking for the purpose of reading thoughts, remotely controlling someone, and inflicting pain or death—and assesses their compliance …

A Jurisprudential Quilt Of Tribal Civil Jurisdiction: An Analysis Of Tribal Court Approaches To Determining Civil Adjudicatory Jurisdiction, Jacob Maiman-Stadtmauer

American Indian Law Journal

There are hundreds of Native American Tribes with their own judicial systems and courts. Under the test first established in Montana v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States has provided a single, nebulous standard for determining the limits of tribal courts’ jurisdiction over non-Indians. Scholars and federal jurists have long assumed that the Supreme Court's framework limiting tribal civil jurisdiction is essential to how tribal courts determine jurisdiction. This paper challenges that assumption. Through a first of its kind survey of tribal court decisions on civil jurisdiction, spanning 26 tribes and covering 71 decisions, this paper …

Ford V. Where Are We?: The Revival Of The Sliding Scale To Govern The Supreme Court's New "Relating To" Personal Jurisdiction, Zois Manaris

William & Mary Law Review

This Note proposes a test to govern “relating to” specific jurisdiction, a variation on a theme to those familiar with the doctrine: a “sliding scale” approach to contacts and relatedness, accompanied by a separate assessment of reasonableness factors the Supreme Court has outlined in previous cases to serve as a check on the sliding scale. Part I of this Note explains the “sliding scale” approach, its unpleasant first interaction with the Court, and its revival by the Ford majority. Part II defines this Note’s proposed test and demonstrates its consistency with Supreme Court precedent. Finally, Part III applies this Note’s …

Jurisdictional Issues In Cyberspace, Justice S. Muralidhar

Indian Journal of Law and Technology

With the advent of the internet and the transmission of information and transacting of business across borders, a host of issues have cropped up on the legal front. This article proposes to deal with only one such major issue – that of jurisdiction of the courts to deal with intellectual property rights (IPR) disputes arising out of commercial transactions on the internet. Within the fairly broad field of IPR, the focus will be on trademark disputes, as that is one area where the major developments have taken place.

Lack Of Child Protection In Us Custody Proceedings Involving Allegations Of Abuse, Elle Stoker

Ballard Brief

If allegations of abuse are filed in a child custody proceeding, it is meant to show evidence that the child could be in danger of future physical, sexual, or psychological abuse or neglect. The individuals who receive guardianship of children play a large role in the child's healthcare, education, and living situation. With some numbers estimating that 58,000 children per year are put into the custody of an abuser, this issue is important to consider. Currently, the United States has different laws and regulations that are not applied consistently across different court cases. While psychological testing is one of the …

What It Takes: A Statistical Analysis Of Arkansas Supreme Court’S Petition For Review Process, Justice Rhonda Wood, Jessica Finan Patterson, Brian W. Johnson

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jurisdiction At Work: Specific Personal Jurisdiction In Flsa Collective Actions After Bristol-Myers Squibb, Anaid Reyes Kipp

Georgia State University Law Review

In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (BMS), eighty-six California residents and five hundred ninety-two nonresidents from thirty-three different states, who had originally filed eight separate complaints, used ordinary party joinder rules to file a mass tort action in California state court, alleging that Bristol-Myers Squibb’s blood-thinning drug made them sick. The Supreme Court held in 2017 that the California state court did not have specific personal jurisdiction over the national pharmaceutical company because its contacts with California were insufficient in relation to the claims by nonresident plaintiffs. Although BMS was a mass action filed in state court, its …

Still On Patrol: An Argument For Greater Protections For Sunken American State Vessels In International And Foreign Coastal Waters, Sarah Elizabeth Catterson

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Quint, the surly captain from Steven Spielberg’s Jaws, is perhaps most famous for his soliloquy recounting the Indianapolis tragedy. The Indy, as she was called, sunk just under fifteen minutes after being hit by Japanese torpedoes in 1945 following her delivery of the components for the Hiroshima atomic bomb to the Pacific island of Tinian. It took the Navy five days to realize she was missing, by which point 600 of the 800 survivors had died from exposure or shark attacks. The Indy remained missing until she was found seventy-two years later by the Petrel, a …

Recent Developments, Silas Heffley

Arkansas Law Review

In a case involving a Missouri televangelist, a purported COVID-19 cure, and state officials from Arkansas and California, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Legislative Push Towards Supersession In Missouri: Why The State Attorney General Should Not Be Statutorily Granted Concurrent Jurisdiction With Locally Elected Prosecutors, Josef Nilhas

Saint Louis University Law Journal

There is a current trend of electing progressive or “reform-minded” prosecutors over “tough-on-crime” prosecutors in local elections across the country. Traditionally, prosecutors have possessed wide discretion over which cases to prosecute or not, and the law presumes that “prosecutors make discretionary decisions disinterestedly, unaffected by their own self-interest or the interest of others.” However, recently in Missouri, state officials have pushed for providing the state attorney general with concurrent jurisdiction over certain cases. In particular, the Missouri Senate passed a provision through an amendment to House Bill 2 (“HB2”) that would allow the State Attorney General to take over homicide …

The Heat Is On: Will Climate Change Suits Pressure The Supreme Court To Evolve Its Federal Question Jurisdiction?, Katie Hoffecker

Saint Louis University Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Remembrance, Group Gripes, And Legal Frictions: Rule Of Law Or Awful Lore?, Aviam Soifer

Touro Law Review

The rise of groups that honor and seek to advance their particular imagined or real pasts has seemed increasingly dangerous in the years since Bob Cover’s death in 1986. This essay briefly examines the challenges such groups pose to Bob’s hope, and even his faith, that law and legal procedure could be bridges to more just worlds. It may not be ours to finish consideration of how to distinguish the Rule of Law from Awful Lore—both composed of exactly the same letters—but we should continue that task, with remembrance, even within our troubled world.

Solving The Procedural Puzzles Of The Texas Heartbeat Act And Its Imitators: The Potential For Defensive Litigation, Charles W. "Rocky" Rhodes, Howard M. Wasserman

SMU Law Review

The Texas Heartbeat Act (SB8) prohibits abortions following detection of a fetal heartbeat, a constitutionally invalid ban under current Supreme Court precedent. But the law adopts a unique enforcement scheme—it prohibits enforcement by government officials in favor of private civil actions brought by “any person,” regardless of injury. Texas sought to burden reproductive-health providers and rights advocates with costly litigation and potentially crippling liability.

In a series of articles, we explore how SB8’s exclusive reliance on private enforcement creates procedural and jurisdictional hurdles to challenging the law’s constitutional validity and obtaining judicial review. This piece explores defensive litigation, in which …