Law Commons^™

Possible Reliance: Protecting Legally Innocent Johnson Claimants, Keagan Potts

Michigan Law Review

The writ of habeas corpus presents the last chance for innocent defendants to obtain relief from invalid convictions and sentences. The writ constitutes a limited exception to the finality of judgments. Given the role finality plays in conserving judicial resources and deterring criminal conduct, exceptions created by habeas must be principally circumscribed. Since the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause in Johnson v. United States, the federal courts of appeals have attempted to develop a test that protects the writ from abuse by Johnson claimants.

This Note first contributes a new understanding of the …

Private Standardization In Public International Lawmaking, Janelle M. Diller

Michigan Journal of International Law

The interplay between market forces and legal compulsion is as old as the Code of Ur-Nammu, yet the financial incentives for social conformity have never been more patent. In what may be its most ambitious effort yet, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) recently launched the International Standard ISO 26000:2010 (ISO 26000) on social responsibility (SR), a new voluntary standard providing guidance to any organization on good practices in SR.2 ISO 26000 provides wide-ranging guidance on areas of social and environmental conduct that are relevant to public policy and regulation. The single ISO-branded package offers a new product that markets …

Establishing A "Due Care" Standard Under The Lacey Act Amendments Of 2008, Rachel Saltzman

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

The Lacey Act was first enacted in 1900 as a narrow measure for domestic bird preservation and agriculture protection. It was significantly amended in 1981 and 1988 to prohibit trafficking in fish and wildlife "taken, possessed, transported, or sold" in violation of state and foreign laws. For the past three decades, the amended statute has provided the federal government with a powerful tool for regulating imports of fish and wildlife. In 2008 Congress expanded its reach still further, responding to widespread concern about the effects of illegal logging on local governance, the environment, and American business by extending the Act's …

Regulatory Standards And Products Liability: Striking The Right Balance Between The Two, Teresa Moran Schwartz

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Common law courts have a long tradition of borrowing legislative and regulatory standards to define standards of care under the tort system. Treating such standards as setting minimum levels of care and safety under tort law, the courts uniformly have ruled that violations of standards constitute negligence per se, while compliance is merely evidence of negligence. Although critics of the tort system have urged legislatures and courts to adopt rules giving greater weight to regulatory compliance in products liability cases, the drafters of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability have declined to do so. They have adopted instead an …

Filing For Personal Bankruptcy: Adoption Of A "Bona Fide Effort" Test Under Chapter 13, Stephan M. Vidmar

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I discusses the history and current application of the Chapter 13 wage earner relief provisions, focusing on the present "good faith" controversy. Part II analyzes the "bona fide effort" test and examines its current congressional status. Part III suggests that more specific statutory guidance is necessary in order to effectively apply the "bona fide effort" test and recommends specific guidelines for its use. The article concludes that by following such a set of standard guidelines when applying the "bona fide effort" test, bankruptcy courts would promote uniform treatment of debtors, enhance judicial economy, and facilitate appellate review of Chapter …

Standards Of Willfulness Under The Fair Labor Standards Act, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

The statutes of limitations facing plaintiffs who bring actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA] vary, depending upon the willfulness of the violation. The Act establishes two limitations: three years for willful violations, and two years for nonwillful violations. It does not, however, define willfulness, and federal courts have interpreted the concept in two very different ways. Under the more prevalent rule, the test is: "Did the employer know the FLSA was in the picture?" But other courts have been more guarded, reserving the longer limitations period for "violations which are intentional, knowing or voluntary as distinguished from accidental." …