Law Commons^™

State-Action Immunity And Section 5 Of The Ftc Act, Daniel A. Crane, Adam Hester

Michigan Law Review

The state-action immunity doctrine of Parker v. Brown immunizes anticompetitive state regulations from preemption by federal antitrust law so long as the state takes conspicuous ownership of its anticompetitive policy. In its 1943 Parker decision, the Supreme Court justified this doctrine, observing that no evidence of a congressional will to preempt state law appears in the Sherman Act’s legislative history or context. In addition, commentators generally assume that the New Deal court was anxious to avoid re-entangling the federal judiciary in Lochner-style substantive due process analysis. The Supreme Court has observed, without deciding, that the Federal Trade Commission might …

Interactive Computer Service Liability For User-Generated Content After Roommates.Com, Bradley M. Smyer

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note explores the future of interactive computer service provider (ICSP) liability for user-generated content under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) after Roommates.com II. Roommates.com II held that a housing website was not entitled to immunity under § 230 of the CDA from federal Fair Housing Act claims, in part because providing preselected answers to a mandatory questionnaire rendered the site an "information content provider" at least partially responsible for creation or development of answers. After examining the historical and legislative origins of ICSP immunity for user-generated content under 47 U.S. C. § 230, this Note argues that courts …

The New "Pick-Your-Own" Statutes: Delineating Limited Immunity From Tort Liability, Terence J. Centner

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Over the past several years, state legislatures have been asked to provide immunity from liability for members of certain interest groups including providers of horses, risky sport activities, and "pick-your-own" produce. This Article reports on statutory provisions providing tort immunity for producers who allow the public to come onto their property to harvest crops. Provisions allowing profit-making businesses to qualify for tort immunity are not new, but the expansion to cover pick-your-own operators signifies a significant policy change regarding personal liability. The pick-your-own provisions may indicate a policy shift imposing greater responsibility for persons engaging in activities to use care …

The Case Against Section 1983 Immunity For Witnesses Who Conspire With A State Official To Present Perjured Testimony, Jennifer S. Zbytowski

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that witnesses who conspire with a state official to present perjured testimony at a judicial proceeding should not have absolute immunity from a section 1983 suit for damages. Part I provides background information on section 1983 and explains why a witness-state conspiracy satisfies the requirements of a section 1983 cause of action. Part I also summarizes the Supreme Court's doctrinal approach to section 1983 immunity. Finally, Part I examines two Supreme Court cases which are relevant to the issue of immunity for witness conspirators: Briscoe v. LaHue, and Malley v. Briggs. Part II applies the …

Public Official's Qualified Immunity In Section 1983 Actions Under Harlow V. Fitzgerald And Its Progeny: A Critical Analysis, Stephen J. Shapiro

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this Article discusses the development of immunities in section 1983 actions. Part II examines the application of Harlow and its progeny to a variety of situations. This discussion shows that broadened qualified immunity produces anomalous results under some circumstances by granting immunity to officials who have acted in a clearly culpable manner. Part III discusses the appropriateness of the Harlow standard and determines that it is neither supported by the legislative history of section 1983 nor by legitimate policy concerns. Finally, Part IV proposes several solutions that would protect deserving public officials from personal damage liability without …

Reforming The Laws And Practice Of Diplomatic Immunity, Paul F. Roye

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

As a result of public criticism and increasingly strained relations between diplomatic communities and local communities, Congress recently enacted legislation that dramatically changes United States diplomatic immunity law. This legislation eliminates the complete immunity from criminal and civil law proceedings that was afforded most foreign diplomats and their staffs, and establishes the rules of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations as the measure of diplomatic immunity in the United States. This article will examine the theoretical justification for diplomatic immunity and its application in the United States. The manner in which the recently enacted legislation alters United States diplomatic immunity …

Title Ii - General Immunity, Jeffrey J. Greenbaum

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This title repeals or conforms the over fifty existing federal immunity statutes and establishes a uniform federal immunity statute to apply to proceedings before or ancillary to a court, grand jury, or agency of the United States, either house of Congress, or its joint committees, committees or subcommittees. The scope of immunity granted protects a witness from the use of his testimony or its fruits in a future criminal prosecution, but does not protect him from prosecution itself. This reflects a positive decision by Congress that the fifth amendment self-incrimination clause only requires a grant of what has been referred …

Compelling The Testimony Of Political Deviants, O. John Rogge

Michigan Law Review

At the last term the United States Supreme Court in Ullmann v. United States upheld the constitutionality of paragraph (c) of a federal act of August 1954 which seeks to compel the testimony of communists and other political deviants. Paragraph (c) relates to witnesses before federal courts and grand juries. The Court specifically left open the question of the validity of paragraphs (a) and (b) relating to congressional witnesses. Justice Frankfurter delivered the Court's opinion. Justice Douglas, with the concurrence of Justice Black, wrote a dissent.

It is our purpose to consider the background, history and terms of this compulsory …

Legislation - Witness Immunity Act Of 1954 - Constitutional And Interpretative Problem, George S. Flint S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The passage in August, 1954 of a federal statute granting immunity under specified conditions to witnesses before congressional committees and in the federal courts marks a third legislative experiment designed to soften the effect of the Fifth Amendment as a limitation on the investigatory power of Congress. The first two attempts were less than successful. This comment will discuss the historical background of immunity legislation, and some possible constitutional pitfalls and problems of construction created by the statutory language.