Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Congress (2)
- Constitution (2)
- 2020 election (1)
- 2020 election case (1)
- 2020 presidential election (1)
-
- Addiction (1)
- Administration (1)
- Administrative law (1)
- Administrative state (1)
- Agency (1)
- Article III (1)
- Campaign (1)
- Candidate (1)
- Chevron (1)
- Choice of law (1)
- Choice-of-law provision (1)
- Combat Zone (1)
- Communications (1)
- Constitutional departmentalism (1)
- Constitutional departmentalists (1)
- Constitutional interpretation (1)
- Constitutional interpretive authority (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Deliberative Process Privilege (1)
- Democratic health (1)
- Department Head (1)
- Direct Support (1)
- Discretion (1)
- Drug abuse (1)
- Elected official (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Legislation
How Can Federal Actors Compete On Noncompetes? Examining The Need For And Possibility Of Federal Action On Noncompetition Agreements, Robert Mcavoy
How Can Federal Actors Compete On Noncompetes? Examining The Need For And Possibility Of Federal Action On Noncompetition Agreements, Robert Mcavoy
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
Employees have been frustrated by the restrictiveness of noncompete agreements and confused about their enforceability for decades. The added complication of choice-of-law provisions in employment contracts with noncompetes creates a sea of unpredictability for both employees and employers.
Each state applies its own policy to noncompete agreements. While every state treats noncompetes differently than typical contract provisions, a broad spectrum exists between the states that are friendly and those that are hostile to the enforcement of noncompetes. Employees and employers often fail to understand whether their noncompete is enforceable under the jurisdiction chosen by the contract, and courts override choice-of-law …
Baby & Bathwater: Standing In Election Cases After 2020, Steven J. Mulroy
Baby & Bathwater: Standing In Election Cases After 2020, Steven J. Mulroy
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The current consensus among commentators is that the flood of cases challenging the 2020 presidential election results was almost completely meritless. This consensus is correct as to the ultimate result, but not as to the courts’ treatment of standing. In their (understandable) zeal to reject sometimes frivolous attempts to overturn a legitimate election and undermine public confidence in our electoral system, many courts were too quick to rule that plaintiffs lacked standing. These rulings resulted in unjustified sweeping rulings that voters were not injured even if their legal votes were diluted by states accepting illegal votes; that campaigns did not …
The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum
The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
This article enters into the modern debate between “consti- tutional departmentalists”—who contend that the executive and legislative branches share constitutional interpretive authority with the courts—and what are sometimes called “judicial supremacists.” After exploring the relevant history of political ideas, I join the modern minority of voices in the latter camp.
This is an intellectual history of two evolving political ideas—popular sovereignty and the separation of powers—which merged in the making of American judicial power, and I argue we can only understand the structural function of judicial review by bringing these ideas together into an integrated whole. Or, put another way, …
The Opioid Litigation: The Fda Is Mia, Catherine M. Sharkey
The Opioid Litigation: The Fda Is Mia, Catherine M. Sharkey
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
It is readily agreed that federal preemption of state tort law alters the balance between federal and state power. Federal preemption is a high-profile defense in almost all modern products liability cases. It is thus surprising to see how little attention has been given to federal preemption by courts and commentators in the opioid litigation. Opioid litigation provides a lens through which I explore the role of state and federal courts and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in striking the right balance of power. My purpose here is not to resolve the divide among the few courts that have …
O’Neill, Oh O’Neill, Wherefore Art Thou O’Neill: Defining And Cementing The Requirements For Asserting Deliberative Process Privilege, Andrew Scott
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The government may invoke the deliberative process privilege to protect the communications of government officials involving policy-driven decision-making. The privilege protects communications made before policy makers act upon the policy decision to allow government officials to speak candidly when deciding a course of action without fear of their words being used against them.
This privilege is not absolute and courts recognize the legitimate countervailing interest the public has in transparency. The Supreme Court in United States v. Reynolds held that someone with control over the protected information should personally consider the privilege before asserting it but did not provide definitive …
Taxing Combat, Samuel Kan
Taxing Combat, Samuel Kan
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
When you are being shot at or dodging landmines you are in a combat zone. Diplomatic niceties aside, these brave warriors are in danger because of the policies of their Government and we must take care of them. Quite frankly, we must act to insure that we do not have a repeat of what happened in Somalia. In Somalia, the families of the soldiers who lost their lives could not receive the benefits that should have gone to them under the Tax Code because the President never declared it a combat zone.
We don’t know exactly where we’re at in …