Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Sanctuary cities (3)
- Sanctuary city (3)
- Immigrant (2)
- Immigration (2)
- Law enforcement (2)
-
- Refugee (2)
- 8 U.S.C. § 1373 (1)
- Anti-immigrant (1)
- Anti-immigration (1)
- Arizona (1)
- Blue collar (1)
- Border patrol (1)
- Calder v. Jones (1)
- Chinese courts (1)
- Choice of law (1)
- Crime (1)
- Crime reporting (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Department of Homeland Security (1)
- Department of Labor (1)
- Divorce Act (1)
- Documented worker (1)
- Due process (1)
- Employee (1)
- Enforcement (1)
- Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1)
- Executive Order 13768 (1)
- Fairness (1)
- Federal government (1)
- Forcible Compulsion (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Enforceability: Foreign Arbitral Awards In Chinese Courts, Mo Zhang
Enforceability: Foreign Arbitral Awards In Chinese Courts, Mo Zhang
San Diego International Law Journal
Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in China has always been a widespread concern. There is not only a fear of deficiency in the Chinese legal system, but also a disconnection between foreign perception and Chinese reality. Since the nation joined the New York Convention in the 1980’s, China has made efforts to fulfill its treaty obligations. Foreign parties, however, remain skeptical about whether foreign arbitral awards will be fairly enforced in the country.
In 2015, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) issued a judicial interpretation that contains provisions explicitly addressing several confusing and controversial matters on foreign arbitration. In …
Sanctuary Cities And The Trump Administration: The Practical Limits Of Federal Power, Joshua W. Dansby
Sanctuary Cities And The Trump Administration: The Practical Limits Of Federal Power, Joshua W. Dansby
The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice
On January 25, 2017, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order with the supposed purpose of enhancing public safety of the interior of the United States. Part of the Administration’s plan includes threatening “sanctuary jurisdictions,” also known as “sanctuary cities,” with the loss of federal funds for failing to comply with federal law, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1373.
There are several problems with this plan: (1) there is no solid definition for what makes a city a “sanctuary;” (2) if we accept the Administration’s allusion that a sanctuary jurisdiction is one that “willfully” refuses to comply with 8 U.S.C. …
Effects Of Senate Bill 4 On Wage-Theft: Why All Workers Are At Risk In Low-Income Occupations, Daniella Salas-Chacon
Effects Of Senate Bill 4 On Wage-Theft: Why All Workers Are At Risk In Low-Income Occupations, Daniella Salas-Chacon
The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice
Abstract forthcoming
Undocumented Crime Victims: Unheard, Unnumbered, And Unprotected, Pauline Portillo
Undocumented Crime Victims: Unheard, Unnumbered, And Unprotected, Pauline Portillo
The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice
Abstract forthcoming
When Courts Run Amuck: A Book Review Of Unequal: How America's Courts Undermine Discrimination Law By Sandra F. Sperino And Suja A. Thomas (Oxford 2017), Theresa M. Beiner
When Courts Run Amuck: A Book Review Of Unequal: How America's Courts Undermine Discrimination Law By Sandra F. Sperino And Suja A. Thomas (Oxford 2017), Theresa M. Beiner
Texas A&M Law Review
In Unequal: How America’s Courts Undermine Discrimination Law (“Unequal”), law professors Sandra F. Sperino and Suja A. Thomas provide a point-by-point analysis of how the federal courts’ interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws have undermined their efficacy to provide relief to workers whose employers have allegedly engaged in discrimination. The cases’ results are consistently pro-employer, even while the Supreme Court of the United States—a court not known for being particularly pro-plaintiff—has occasionally ruled in favor of plaintiff employees. The authors suggest some reasons for this apparent anti-plaintiff bias among the federal courts, although they do not settle on a particular reason …
It’S Not The Thought That Counts: Pennsylvania Quietly Made Rape And Idsi Strict Liability Crimes, Jordan E. Yatsko
It’S Not The Thought That Counts: Pennsylvania Quietly Made Rape And Idsi Strict Liability Crimes, Jordan E. Yatsko
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
In 1982, the Pennsylvania Superior Court decided Commonwealth v. Williams, wherein the court held that a defendant charged with rape or involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI) cannot use a mistake of fact defense as to the victim’s consent. The court relied on the reasoning that a defendant’s mens rea is not an element of either rape or IDSI. Section 302 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, however, requires that where the legislature has failed to expressly require a finding of mens rea in the text of the statute, at least recklessness must be imputed to each material element.
This Comment …
Minimum Virtual Contacts: A Framework For Specific Jurisdiction In Cyberspace, Adam R. Kleven
Minimum Virtual Contacts: A Framework For Specific Jurisdiction In Cyberspace, Adam R. Kleven
Michigan Law Review
As the ubiquity and importance of the internet continue to grow, courts will address more cases involving online activity. In doing so, courts will confront the threshold issue of whether a defendant can be subject to specific personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, however, has yet to speak to this internet-jurisdiction issue. Current precedent, when strictly applied to the internet, yields fundamentally unfair results when addressing specific jurisdiction. To better achieve the fairness aim of due process, this must change. This Note argues that, in internet tort cases, the “express aiming” requirement should be discarded from the jurisdictional analysis and that …
Spousal Support In Quebec: Resisting The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, Jodi Lazare
Spousal Support In Quebec: Resisting The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, Jodi Lazare
Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
Since 2005, the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines have become an essential part of the practice of family law throughout Canada. Aimed at structuring discretionary spousal support determinations under the Divorce Act and increasing the fairness of awards, the Advisory Guidelines have been embraced by appellate courts across jurisdictions. Quebec is the exception to that trend. Despite that marriage and divorce fall under federal jurisdiction, Quebec courts resist the application of these non-binding rules, written by two family law scholars. This article responds to Quebec's resistance to the Advisory Guidelines and suggests that concerns about them may be misplaced. By reviewing …