Law Commons^™

Evaluating New York's Notice Of Claim Requirements: Why Naming Individual Municipal Employees Is Not Essential, Daniel Randazzo

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note argues that the approach adopted by the Fourth Department in Goodwin—that General Municipal Law § 50-e does not require the naming of individual municipal employees— is the correct approach in terms of the text of the statute and the purpose behind the statute, as well as policy and practical implications. This Note is comprised of four parts. Part I illustrates the importance of the notice of claim requirement and introduces the text of New York General Municipal Law § 50- e(2). Part II provides a synopsis of the case law on both sides of this issue, …

The Long-Arm's Inappropriate Embrace, Lynda Wray Black

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Arguably, the heart balm torts have outlived their relevance in a society where marriage is no longer a necessary imprimatur for intimate relations, and where broken hearts and failed marriages are the statistical norm. A state’s resolute rejection of the heart balm torts in principle as well as applied to modern domestic relations mores need be checked neither by Constitutional protections of marriage nor by the need for uniformity among sister states. Therefore, one state need not and must not transport its domestic relations public policy across state lines. Mississippi’s expansive jurisdictional embrace of nonresidents, John Daly and Anna …

Your Bodies, Ourselves: Legal Protection Of Potential Human Life, Jeffery A. Parness

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Amendment Of The Abortion Law: Relevant Data And Judicial Opinion, John T. Noonan, Jr.

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Parental Relation Not A Bar To Recovery In Negligence Actions

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Valdez V. City Of New York: The "Death Knell" Of Municipal Tort Liability?, Alisa M. Benintendi

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note contends that the Court of Appeals erred in narrowing the scope of municipal tort liability in Valdez. Focus is on the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of its regressive analysis in McLean v. City of New York and mistaken reliance upon its earlier decision in Cuffy v. City of New York. To illustrate the Court of Appeals’ unwavering adherence to Valdez, this Note examines the court’s decisions in Metz v. State and Coleson v. City of New York. Part I discusses the history and purpose of sovereign immunity from tort liability, New York’s waiver …

Double Damages Or Nothing: Whether Medicare Advantage Organizations Have A Private Cause Of Action Under The Medicare Secondary Payer Act, Jennifer A. Prevete

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Part I of this Note outlines the history and purpose of the Medicare statute, Medicare Advantage, and the MSP Act. The MSP Act dictates that insured individuals pursue coverage from “primary plans” while Medicare makes conditional payments with the agreement that the primary plans will reimburse the costs. Part II provides the MSP Act’s spectrum of interpretations and why the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals have read the private cause of action with varying expansiveness. Part III concludes that the private cause of action should not be extended to MAOs, asserting that the extension ultimately results in harm …

Constitutional Remedies: Reconciling Official Immunity With The Vindication Of Rights, Michael L. Wells

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Part I makes the crucial point that compensation is a tool and not a distinct goal of tort liability. With civil recourse theory as a guidepost, Part II argues that one of the aims of constitutional tort law is vindication of the plaintiffs rights. Civil recourse principles teach that vindication may be at least partly achieved even when immunity blocks compensation. Part III shows how the Court's failure to distinguish vindication from compensation has unnecessarily impeded the vindication of rights. Two important official immunity cases-Camreta v. Greene and Pearson v. Callahan -illustrate the missed opportunities and show how …

Reasonable Precaution For The Individual, Dov Waisman

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Article has four parts. In Part I, I introduce the question to be explored and describe Barbara Fried's challenge to any attempt to answer that question without summing costs and benefits across persons. Part II responds directly to Fried's challenge, presenting the individualized feasibility principle as a viable, nonaggregative interpretation of reasonable precaution. In Part III, I explore the theoretical underpinnings of the IFP, drawing on a theory of normative ethics known as ex ante contractualism. Part IV concludes.

The Shortcomings Of New York's Long-Arm Statute: Defamation In The Age Of Technology, Robert D. Nussbaum

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note suggests that the New York legislature amend New York's long-arm statute so that it no longer excludes the tort of defamation as a basis for long-arm jurisdiction. Part I provides a brief background and history of jurisdiction and longarm statutes in general. It also focuses on New York's statute more specifically. Part II focuses on the arguments for excluding acts of defamation from long-arm jurisdiction and compares New York's statute to those of other states. Finally, Part III examines the different policy reasons for changing the statute and argues that such a change will not offend Due …

The Electronic Document Retention System Ate My Homework: Gross Negligence And The Rebuttable Presumption Of Prejudice Within The Doctrine Of Spoliation In Federal Courts, Tristan Evans-Wilent

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note argues against imposing such a rebuttable presumption where the spoliating party acted with gross negligence. Part I provides a general background of the doctrine of spoliation and its application to electronic information. Part II examines the three different approaches taken by the federal circuits to whether gross negligence should trigger a rebuttable presumption that the spoliated evidence was prejudicial to the spoliating party. Finally, Part III argues that courts should not allow gross negligence to trigger a rebuttable presumption that the spoliated evidence was prejudicial to the spoliating party.