Law Commons^™

When Commanders Decide: Military Prosecutorial Decision-Making In Sexual Assault Cases, Chris Cox

Scholarly Works

Congress enacted legislation that went into effect in 2023, which transferred prosecutorial decision-making for serious cases, including sexual assault, from Commanders to military lawyers. While there is some research on the military’s criminal justice system that supports shifting the decision-making to military lawyers, there is a large body of research that suggests lawyers, too, suffer from similar impediments when handling decision-making for sexual assault cases. In the wake of this new amendment, it is important to continue assessing how the change will impact case processing, by first clearly understanding what was happening when Commanders had complete authority. This article explores …

Restoring Balance To The Federal Tax-Exemption Regime’S Treatment Of Hospitals: Let Their Actions Speak Louder Than Their Charters, Nicholas Archibald

Campbell Law Review

The tax-exemption system for American hospitals was created both to optimize care for those who cannot afford it and to encourage good deeds by hospitals. But despite well-intentioned attempts by the IRS to implement these lofty policy goals, for-profit hospitals today pay taxes despite at times providing more public benefit than their nonprofit brethren while nonprofit hospitals are incentivized to seek profit rather than provide free care. This rise of this state of affairs coincides with changes by the IRS to the standards required to obtain the exemption. Originally, the nonprofit system operated on a quid pro quo model, where …

A Room Without A View(Point): Must Student-Housing Employees Trade Free Speech For Free Rent?, Frank D. Lomonte, Conner Mitchell

Campbell Law Review

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the power that public university speech policies have to silence students. Although few people were better suited to provide a candid assessment to the media of student safety in on-campus housing than resident assistants, all too often these student employees were forbidden from speaking openly, or at all. To understand the scope of these prohibitions on speech, researchers using freedom-of-information law obtained employment manuals, policies, and guidelines from a wide cross-section of public universities. This Article analyzes the language used in a sample of these materials and concludes that while these speech policies often - and …

A Called Third Strike: Professional Baseball’S Antitrust Exemption In A Post-Dobbs World, Matthew B. Couch

Campbell Law Review

Professional baseball has long enjoyed exemption from federal antitrust law due to a trio of Supreme Court cases. The last of these cases, Flood v. Kuhn, upheld the exemption on the basis of stare decisis, yet rejected the constitutional foundation on which it rested. This Comment argues that in the wake of the recent Supreme Court case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Roberts Court has provided a clear analytical framework for analyzing constitutional stare decisis that should apply to Flood. Applying the Dobbs framework, this Comment then shows how Flood fails every factor favoring continued …

No-Knock Warrants: Protective Or Predatory For North Carolinians?, Micah Mooring

Campbell Law Review

Much ink has been spilled on arguments for restraining law enforcement’s use of no-knock warrants. In 2020, the issue was thrust into the national spotlight with the tragic death of Breonna Taylor at the hands of the Louisville Metro Police Department. While national attention focused on the federal response, Oregon, Florida, Virginia, and other states sprang into action by critically reexamining the justifications offered for the use of no-knock warrants and, in some cases, finding these justifications wanting. The Comment suggests that the justification of safety that no-knock warrants share with their predecessor, the venerable knock-and-announce rule, is not borne …

Theseus In The Labyrinth: How State Constitutions Can Slay The Procedural Minotaur, Marcus Alexander Gadson

Scholarly Works

Civil procedure is one of the biggest hurdles to access to justice. An array of rules and interpretations of those rules have turned lawsuits into meandering mazes with a procedural minotaur waiting to gobble up meritorious claims. The problem is especially acute for the many Americans without abundant resources or access to a lawyer. Fortunately, there is a ready remedy, albeit one access to justice advocates have ignored: state constitutions. Forty state constitutions, which protect hundreds of millions of Americans, generally guarantee "[t]hat all courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his person, property …

After All This Time: An Analysis Of The Recent Trend To Extend Truth-In-Lending-Style Disclosures To Commercial-Financing Transactions, Kelly W. Cline

Campbell Law Review

The Truth in Lending Act of 1968 (TILA) was designed to protect consumers by implementing uniform disclosures for consumer financing transactions and by creating substantive consumer protections. While TILA has been amended over the past fifty years to reflect modern needs, it has always remained a consumer financing law. Over the past few years, however, states have challenged that notion by passing laws which require TILA-inspired disclosures for certain commercial-financing trans-actions. And at the federal level, a bill was introduced in the United States House of Representatives (House Bill) that would expand TILA to commercial-financing transactions falling below a certain …

Vaccine Passports And The Right To Exclude: How The Court’S Holding In Cedar Point Nursery V. Hassid Could Light Fire To The Debate On The Constitutionality Of Vaccine Passport Requirements And Bans, John A. Kuzora

Campbell Law Review

The COVID-19 pandemic gave America its biggest health crisis in the last one hundred years. In efforts to resolve this crisis, several state governments have issued various types of public health measures. Three of these measures are Vaccine Mandates, Vaccine Passport Requirements, and Vaccine Passport Bans. This Comment explores the legality of these three public health measures through the unique lens of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. Specifically, this Comment focuses on how both Vaccine Passport Requirements and Bans infringe on property owners’ rights to include and exclude unvaccinated patrons. This, in turn, results in a physical taking under the …

Bostock: A Clean Cut Into The Gordian Knot Of Causation, Melissa Essary

Scholarly Works

Regardless of merit, most individual employment discrimination claims die a fast death at summary judgment. Judges apply the fine mesh net created by McDonnell Douglas v. Green, and most cases are caught in its trap. This dated, obfuscatory Supreme Court case creates a complex and flawed binary approach to causation: either discrimination or an innocent reason caused an adverse employment action. For decades, all three levels of the federal judiciary have wrestled with McDonnell Douglas, creating snarls and knots in construing causation. Because of this causal confusion, the ideal of equal opportunity in employment is on life-support.

Judges …

Federal Pleadings Standards In State Court, Marcus Gadson

Scholarly Works

Most state courts cannot follow both their state constitutions and federal pleading standards. Even if they could, policy considerations unique to states compel state courts to reject federal pleading standards. This is because federal courts have changed pleading standards to allow judges to make factual determinations on a motion to dismiss and to require more factual detail in complaints. While scholars have vigorously debated whether these changes are wise, just, and permissible under the federal rules and the Constitution, they have ignored the even more important questions of whether state courts can and should adopt those pleading standards. The oversight …

Difficult And Novel Issues Explored By The Students Who Represented The University Of Bucharest In The 2021-2022 Edition Of The Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot, Raluca Papadima

Other Publications

This article provides an overview of the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot in general and of the novel and difficult legal issues raised by the 2021-2022 moot problem. The procedural issue revolved around determining the law applicable to an arbitration agreement where, as it is generally the case, the parties did not specifically select it, and with the additional twist of the existence/validity of the entire contract (including the arbitration agreement) being challenged by one of the parties. The relevant considerations are addressed in an article titled "Midnight problems: finding the law applicable to the arbitration agreement", co-authored …

On-Campus Or Off-Campus? - That Is Still The Question: Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. V. B.L. And The Supreme Court’S New Digital Frontier, Kristopher L. Caudle

Campbell Law Review

This Article examines the contours of the “on-campus” versus “off-campus” distinction embedded in the Supreme Court’s opinion in Mahoney School District v. B.L. This Article argues that B.L., and the Court’s broader Tinker doctrine, fail to adequately address modern student speech issues, especially student speech arising in extracurricular programs and activities. This Article proposes a two-part legal framework for future courts to analyze student speech issues in an increasingly digital post-pandemic world.

How Hard Is Soft Eu Company Law?, Raluca Papadima

Scholarly Works

This article analyzes the soft law applicable to companies within the European Union (EU) in order to extract tendencies, including by comparing US and EU soft law instruments. It concludes that soft law is like wine: many enjoy it, and it gets better as it ages. Soft law is a very popular and successful girl nowadays, for legitimate reasons, but one that brings about a series of concerns as well. After an overview of the main soft law instruments related to corporate governance and financial markets, and their sources, this article extracts a number of trends.

Compelling Code, Nicole Ligon

Scholarly Works

Does the First Amendment protect computer code from being compelled by the government? As society becomes more reliant on coded deviceslike pacemakers, insulin pumps, and even some baby bassinets-courts will need to grapple with this question. In considering compulsions related to code, this Article concludes that intermediate scrutiny is almost always the appropriate standard of review. Rather than expressing a particular viewpoint, code generally constitutes a functional and neutral script. Given that a machine's interpretation of code generally results in an objective action, not a subjective belief, the government need only show in most instances that the compulsion furthers a …

Censorship Of Sexual Assault Survivors In The Educational Context, Nicole Ligon

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

How Do You Value A Victim? Victim Impact Statements In Military Sexual Assault Trials, Chris Cox

Scholarly Works

This Article examines a timely and important issue — the use of Victim Impact Statements (VIS) in criminal trials and, more specifically, in military courts-martial. The right for victims of offenses to provide VIS has existed in the United States for approximately three decades. However, the military’s implementation of similar rights for victims has languished, with the advent of the right for a victim to provide a VIS having been implemented only within the last decade. Relying on legal precedent in the form of appellate case decisions and qualitative assessments of trial court records, this article explores the current state …

State Constitutions And Summary Judgment, Marcus Gadson

Scholarly Works

Is summary judgment constitutional? Scholars have passionately debated the question in recent years. But they have made an important oversight. State courts hear more than fifty times as many cases a year as federal courts do. Whatever state courts decide with regard to summary judgment will affect vastly more litigants than what federal courts do. At the same time, states have largely adopted federal summary judgment standards and cases interpreting them. Yet scholars considering whether summary judgment is constitutional have focused all of their attention on the Seventh Amendment. They have entirely failed to consider state constitutional jury trial guarantees. …

Hitting The Trip-Wire: When Does A Company Become A “Marijuana Business”?, Lauren A. Newell

Scholarly Works

Like the alcohol industry was during Prohibition, the marijuana industry is a profitable one. And, as bootlegging was then, selling marijuana in the United States is currently illegal. Despite the number of states that have legalized or decriminalized the sale of marijuana for medical or recreational use under state law, marijuana sales remain illegal as a matter of federal law under the federal Controlled Substances Act of1970 ("CSA "). Individuals and entities that violate the CSA face substantial criminal and civil liability, including prison time and fines, alongside a host of additional negative consequences arising from business, tax, bankruptcy, and …

The Uncertain Fate Of Asymmetrical Dispute Resolution Clauses In Arbitration Around The Globe: To Be Or Not To Be, Raluca Papadima

Scholarly Works

This article examines the validity and enforceability of asymmetrical dispute resolution clauses combining arbitration and litigation. Such clauses are currently favored by businesses in their search for a method of dispute resolution that provides a more favorable position for one of the parties to an agreement and ensures better enforcement against the assets of the counterparty.

"Assault Weapon" Lethality, E. Gregory Wallace

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

High Crimes: Liability For Directors Of Retail Marijuana Corporations, Lauren Newell

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Differential Treatment Among Creditors Under India's Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Issues And Solutions, C. Scott Pryor, Risham Garg

Scholarly Works

This paper represents the results of an examination of the implementation of India's Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). This project included purposive sampling as well as interviews with resolution professionals, representatives of India's Insolvency Professional Agencies, and officials of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India. Analysis of this data identified three problems: 1. Vesting near-plenary control of the Corporate Resolution Insolvency Process (CIRP) with a Committee of Creditors made up of financial creditors has led to a perception of inequitable distributions between the classes of creditors. 2. The CIRP provisions of the IBC are inconsistent with public policy …

Nine Questions For The Article 9 Professor, Timothy R. Zinnecker

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The University Of Bucharest Contributes To The Promotion Of Arbitration In Romania, Raluca Papadima, Maria Avram, Mihaela Gherghe

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Protecting Women's Voices: Preventing Retaliatory Defamation Claims In The #Metoo Context, Nicole Ligon

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Victims Under Attack: North Carolina's Flawed Rule 609, Daniel R. Tilly

Scholarly Works

Evidence law in North Carolina senselessly punishes victims of domestic and sexual violence by broadly sanctioning witness impeachment with prior convictions – no matter the implicit prejudice to the witness or how little the conviction bears on credibility. The North Carolina approach is an outlier. Under Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the use of conviction evidence for impeaching witness credibility is confined to felonies and crimes involving dishonest acts or false statements. Their use must also satisfy judicial balancing tests aimed at protecting against unfair prejudice to the witness. The majority of states take a similar or …

The Judicial Dean, J. Rich Leonard

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Rebooting Empathy For The Digital Generation Lawyer, Lauren A. Newell

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Who Tells Your Story: The Legality Of An Shift In Racial Preferences Within Casting Practices, Nicole Ligon

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Heller And “Assault Weapons”, David Kopel, Jonathan Lowy, Allen Rostron

Law Review Symposia

A discussion of how Heller has been applied to “assault weapon” bans, with special attention given to the Fourth Circuit’s en banc decision in Kolbe v. Hogan, which held that the popular AR-15 rifle and other “assault weapons” are not protected arms under the Second Amendment.

Moderated by Professor E. Gregory Wallace.