Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Burdine V. Johnson -- To Sleep, Perchance To Get A New Trial: Presumed Prejudice Arising From Sleeping Counsel, James M. Donovan
Burdine V. Johnson -- To Sleep, Perchance To Get A New Trial: Presumed Prejudice Arising From Sleeping Counsel, James M. Donovan
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
Few images slice as deeply into our self-image as a fair society than that of a defendant on trial for his very life depending upon the services of an attorney who naps throughout the proceedings. Although this scenario is not new, the courts have yet to resolve definitively how they should respond to a defendant burdened with snoozing counsel. This note discusses the outcome of the latest attempt. UPDATE: While a conscious lawyer is presumably a requirement of due process, some jurisdictions make no similar demand that judges remain awake: see http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2007/273.html
Discriminatory Housing Statements And §3604(C): A New Look At The Fair Housing Act’S Most Intriguing Provision, Robert G. Schwemm
Discriminatory Housing Statements And §3604(C): A New Look At The Fair Housing Act’S Most Intriguing Provision, Robert G. Schwemm
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
Today, more than three decades after the 1968 Fair Housing Act ("FHA") banned such behavior, blatant discrimination—often accompanied by racist slurs and other explicitly discriminatory statements—continues to plague America's housing markets. The FHA not only outlawed discrimination in most housing transactions on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin, but also contained a specific prohibition, § 3604(c), banning all discriminatory housing statements. Unlike the FHA's more traditional prohibitions against discriminatory refusals to deal and discriminatory terms and conditions, § 3604(c)'s ban on discriminatory statements has not been the subject of much litigation or debate.
Part I of the …
The Overwhelming Case For Elimination Of The Integration Doctrine Under The Securities Act Of 1933, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.
The Overwhelming Case For Elimination Of The Integration Doctrine Under The Securities Act Of 1933, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
The thesis of this Article is that the Securities and Exchange Commission should entirely eliminate the integration doctrine from the Securities Act of1933. Under the integration doctrine, a single "offering" or "issue" of securities cannot be split. The doctrine is expensive for society and furthers no valid policy of the 1933 Act. More specifically, the doctrine does not promote investor protection but does retard capital formation, an outcome that is contrary to the presently articulated purposes of the 1933 Act.
Part II of this Article traces the history of the adoption of the integration doctrine both by the Commission and …