Law Commons^™

Saving America’S Privacy Rights: Why Carpenter V. United States Was Wrongly Decided And Why Courts Should Be Promoting Legislative Reform Rather Than Extending Existing Privacy Jurisprudence, David Stone

St. Mary's Law Journal

Privacy rights are under assault, but the Supreme Court’s judicial intervention into the issue, starting with Katz v. United States and leading to the Carpenter v. United States decision has created an inconsistent, piecemeal common law of privacy that forestalls a systematic public policy resolution by Congress and the states. In order to reach a satisfactory and longlasting resolution of the problem consistent with separation of powers principles, the states should consider a constitutional amendment that reduces the danger of pervasive technologyaided surveillance and monitoring, together with a series of statutes addressing each new issue posed by technological change as …

The Admissibility Of Sampling Evidence To Prove Individual Damages In Class Actions, Hillel J. Bavli, John Kenneth Felter

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The 2016 Supreme Court decision in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo revived the use of “representative” or sampling evidence in class actions. Federal courts are now more receptive to class plaintiffs’ efforts to prove classwide liability and, occasionally, aggregate damages, with sampling evidence. However, federal courts still routinely deny motions for class certification because they find that calculations of class members’ individual damages defeat the predominance prerequisite of Rule 23(b)(3). As a result, meritorious classwide claims founder. In this paper, we combine legal and statistical analyses and propose a novel solution to this dilemma that adheres to the Tysondecision …

Who Knew? Admissibility Of Subsequent Remedial Measures When Defendants Are Without Knowledge Of The Injuries, Mark G. Boyko, Ryan G. Vacca

Law Faculty Scholarship

Federal Rule of Evidence 407 prohibits the introduction of subsequent remedial measures for the purposes of demonstrating negligence, culpable conduct, or product defect. But the rule breaks down, in application and purpose, when a defendant undertakes the new safety measure after the plaintiff's injury, but before the defendant had knowledge of the loss. Such a situation is not uncommon. Would-be defendants frequently improve their products and product safety for a variety of reasons. Toxic exposure cases, where exposure often predates diagnosis of the injury by a decade or more, represent a prime example of cases where defendants are likely to …

A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

The trend of the eminent domain reform and "Kelo plus" initiatives is toward a comprehensive Constitutional property right incorporating the elements of level of review, nature of government action, and extent of compensation. This article contains a draft amendment which reflects these concerns.

Are Patented Research Tools Still Valuable? Use, Intent, And A Rebuttable Presumption: A Proposed Modification For Analyzing The Exemption From Patent Infringement Under 35 Usc 271 (E) (1), Vihar R. Patel

ExpressO

Briefly, the article proposes to have courts focus on the nature of an individual's use and apply the "UART" (Use As a Research Tool) factors to determine if a patented invention is being used as a research tool. If a patented invention is being used as a research tool, then the court is to presume that the activities are not covered by the FDA exemption. However, this presumption can be rebutted by a researcher's demonstration of the research tool owner using his patent to block efforts to develop a competing product. If the presumption is rebutted, then the court applies …

Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.

Finding New Constitutional Rights Through The Supreme Court’S Evolving “Government Purpose” Test Under Minimum Scrutiny, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

By now we all are familiar with the litany of cases which refused to find elevated scrutiny for so-called “affirmative” or “social” rights such as education, welfare or housing: Lindsey v. Normet, San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, Dandridge v. Williams, DeShaney v. Winnebago County. There didn’t seem to be anything in minimum scrutiny which could protect such facts as education or housing, from government action. However, unobtrusively and over the years, the Supreme Court has clarified and articulated one aspect of minimum scrutiny which holds promise for vindicating facts. You will recall that under minimum scrutiny government’s action is …

Breaking The Bank: Revisiting Central Bank Of Denver After Enron And Sarbanes-Oxley, Celia Taylor

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Recent Cases, Law Review Staff

Vanderbilt Law Review

Antitrust--Treble Damage Actions--Private Litigant Whose Injury Was Reasonably Foreseeable Has Standing To Sue

==========================

Constitutional Law--Free Exercise of Religion--First Amendment Violated by Compulsory Education Statute that Prevents a Parent from Raising His Children According to His Religious Beliefs

============================

Constitutional Law--Immunity Statutes-Section 201 of Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Which Provides Only Use and Fruits Immunity, Violates Fifth Amendment

=============================

Constitutional Law-Search and Seizure--AFDC Caseworker's Visit to Home of Nonconsenting Welfare Recipient Not Prohibited by Fourth Amendment

=============================

Consumer Protection Law-Standing -United States Has Standing To Seek Injunction Against Practice of Obtaining Default Judgments Through False Affidavits Certifying Service …