Law Commons^™

A History Of Corporate Law Federalism In The Twentieth Century, William W. Bratton

Seattle University Law Review

This Article describes the emergence of corporate law federalism across a long twentieth century. The period begins with New Jersey’s successful initiation of charter competition in 1888 and ends with the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002. The federalism in question describes the interrelation of state and federal regulation of corporate internal affairs. This Article takes a positive approach, pursuing no normative bottom line. It makes six observations: (1) the federalism describes a division of subject matter, with internal affairs regulated by the states and securities issuance and trading regulated by the federal government; (2) the federalism is an …

Say “No” To Discrimination, “Yes” To Accommodation: Why States Should Prohibit Discrimination Of Workers Who Use Cannabis For Medical Purposes, Anne Marie Lofaso, Lakyn D. Cecil

Seattle University Law Review

This Article addresses the question of how the law should treat medical cannabis in the employment context. Using Colorado as a primary example, we argue that states such as Colorado should amend their constitutions and legislate to provide employment protections for employees who are registered medical cannabis cardholders or registered caregivers.

Part I briefly traces the legal regulation of cannabis from an unregulated medicine known as cannabis to a highly regulated illicit substance known as marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act. Our travail through this history reveals, unsurprisingly, an increasing demonization of cannabis throughout the twentieth century. That socio-legal demonization …

The Implications Of Federalism For The Regulation Of Federal Government Lawyers, Andrew Flavelle Martin

Dalhousie Law Journal

The implications of Canadian federalism for the regulation of lawyers for the federal government are largely overlooked in the literature and case law. This article argues that employees of the federal government can practice law without being licensed by the corresponding provincial law society (or any law society). However, if they happen to be licensed by a law society, they can be disciplined by that law society—unless and until Parliament adopts legislation immunizing them from law society discipline. The article also considers the possibility that Parliament could create a separate bar for federal government lawyers. It concludes that some form …

Our Federalism: The United States And The Regulation Of Lawyers, Michael J. Churgin

San Diego Law Review

Dedication to the works of Prof. Fred Zacharias.

Privacy Lost: Comparing The Attenuation Of Texas's Article 1, Section 9 And The Fourth Amendment., Kimberly S. Keller

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that all searches and seizures be reasonable. Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution mirrors its federal counterpart, requiring reasonableness in regard to intrusive governmental action. In examining these texts, both the federal and state provisions are comprised of two independent clauses: (1) the Reasonableness Clause, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures; and (2) the warrant clause, which provides that warrants may issue only upon a showing of probable cause. Both the federal and Texas constitutions include explicit language regulating the government’s right to intrude on a person’s privacy. This …

Fair Labor Standards Act And Sovereign Immunity: Unlocking The Courthouse Door For Texas State Employees., Melinda Herrera

St. Mary's Law Journal

Unless Texas expressly waives its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, its state employees will not have similar legal recourse and protection as those available to private employees. As in many other states, a party may not sue the State of Texas without its consent. Thus, in the absence of constitutional or statutory provisions to the contrary, a state may claim sovereign immunity against any suit brought by a private party in both federal and state court. As a result, the Eleventh Amendment effectively precludes private individuals from suing a state in both federal and state court for violating a federal statute …

Splitting The Atom Or Splitting Hairs - The Hate Crimes Prevention Act Of 1999 Note., Andrew M. Gilbert, Eric D. Marchand

St. Mary's Law Journal

Problems of bias-motivated violence plague our nation and threaten to erase the progress made during the civil rights era. Recent statistical surveys conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) indicate the number of hate crimes has generally increased over the past few years. In 1996, over 11,000 individuals were victims of hate crimes—five percent more than reported the previous year. Hate crimes are not only injurious to the individual victim, but also fracture surrounding communities and create disharmony among citizens. As a result, some states implemented legislation in the 1980s to deter hate-motived crimes and a few states have …

Federalism Revisited: The Supreme Court Resurrects The Notion Of Enumerated Powers By Limiting Congress's Attempt To Federalize Crime Comment., Larry E. Gee

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Comment argues the federal system must be preserved and the Supreme Court should build upon the interpretation of the Commerce Clause in United States v. Lopez to reinstate the Framers’ vision of federalism. The social justifications for the Court’s expansive construction of the Commerce Clause during the past sixty years no longer existed to justify the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. Part II of this Comment traces the background of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, focusing on social justifications for traditional rubber stamping of Congress’s broad exercises of power. Part III reviews the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in deeming the Gun-Free …

Expert Witness Fees In Federal Diversity Cases., Wade P. Webster

St. Mary's Law Journal

Even with the increasing complexity of litigation and the increased utilization of expert witnesses to provide expensive evidence on narrow scientific and technical issues, Congress still limits compensation of expert witnesses to only forty dollars per day, the same rate as ordinary fact witnesses. The justification for the low rate is that the witness fee statute was not intended by Congress to compensate witnesses fully for their lost time and income. Presumably this same reasoning also applies to expert witnesses. The problem with this reasoning, unlike law witnesses who may be compelled by subpoena, individual litigants must pay the fees …