Law Commons^™

Rethinking Removal And "Relates To": International Arbitration Disputes And The N.Y. Convention, Holly Wilson

University of Richmond Law Review

Part I explores the historical roots of the Convention,

discusses the evolution of its removal provisions, and explains how

it functions in the district courts today. Part II addresses the arguments

in favor of reverting to the Ruhrgas standard. This article

demonstrates that the current judicial interpretation of the Convention's

removal provisions under Beiser is too broad and that the

stricter construction under Ruhrgas should be re-adopted. Part II

examines three key reasons why the current Beiser standard is unworkable:

the current standard (1) leads to absurd results, (2) disrespects

notions of federalism and strains comity, and (3) in conjunction …

Katz V. United States: Back To The Future?, Michael Vitiello

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Digital Technology And Analog Law: Cellular Location Data, The Third-Party Doctrine, And The Law's Need To Evolve, Justin Hill

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Binding The Enforcers: The Administrative Law Struggle Behind President Obama's Immigration Actions, Michael Kagan

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Non-Competition Agreements In Virginia In The Aftermath Of Home Paramount Pest Control V. Shaffer, Kevin E. Martingayle

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Corporate And Business Law, Laurence V. Parker

University of Richmond Law Review

In the 2011 session, the Virginia General Assembly passed House Bill 2358, Benefit Corporations, to be codified as article 22 (the "Benefit Corporations Article") of the Virginia Stock Corporation Act ("VSCA"). The Benefit Corporations Article is largely based on legislation prepared in other states and allows a Virginia corporation to elect in its articles of incorporation to be treated as a "benefit corporation." These for-profit corporations are required to pursue not only profitability but also a general public benefit and, if one so elects, one or more specific public benefits. In Section II of this article, the author discusses the …

The Process Is The Problem: Lessons Learned From United States Drug Sentencing Reform, Erik S. Siebert

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Medellín V. Texas: The Treaties That Bind, Mary D. Hallerman

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Barriers To Accessible Housing: Enforcement Issues In "Design And Construction" Cases Under The Fair Housing Act, Robert G. Schwemm

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Adr At The Environmental Protection Agency, Joel B. Eisen

Law Faculty Publications

This chapter examines how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods to help resolve complex environmental disputes. In recent years, the EPA's use of ADR has increased dramatically in a wide variety of settings. The EPA has made ADR a central feature of its environmental enforcement strategy, encouraged its use in Title VI and environmental justice conflict settings, and turned to negotiated rulemaking as an alternative to the cumbersome notice-and-comment process for development of new federal regulations. Other EPA programs, such as the Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative, promote nonadversarial methods for tackling complex environmental problems. …

Building A Strong Subnational Debt Market, Paul S. Maco

Richmond Journal of Global Law & Business

Decentralization of responsibility for finance and growing infrastructure needs are two trends that are expected to stimulate a growth in government borrowing at the sub-national level. Statistics for the first half of 2000 show a significant increase in sub-national debt volume, with global public finance, excluding Canada and the United States, more than doubling that of the first half of 1999.

Putting The People Back Into The Fourth Amendment, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

This Article attempts to answer such questions by examining the evolution of search-and-seizure law in America. Although the structural nature of decision making embodied in the Bill of Rights has far-ranging implications for that entire document, I limit my consideration to the unique aspects of the Fourth Amendment. In doing so I have followed the suggestion that constitutional interpretation considers a threefold question: "Does the Constitution mean what it was meant to mean, or what it has come to mean, or what it ought to mean?" Part I examines the historical involvement of juries in search-and-seizure cases; Part II considers …