Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law
The Sffa V. Harvard Trojan Horse Admissions Lawsuit, Kimberly West-Faulcon
The Sffa V. Harvard Trojan Horse Admissions Lawsuit, Kimberly West-Faulcon
Seattle University Law Review
Affirmative-action-hostile admissions lawsuits are modern Trojan horses. The SFFA v. Harvard/UNC case—Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et. al., decided jointly—is the most effective Trojan horse admissions lawsuit to date. Constructed to have the distractingly appealing exterior façade of a lawsuit seeking greater fairness in college admissions, the SFFA v. Harvard/UNC case is best understood as a deception-driven battle tactic used by forces waging a multi-decade war against the major legislative victories of America’s Civil Rights Movement, specifically Title VI and Title VII …
A Guide To Properly Using And Responding To Requests For Admission Under The Texas Discovery Rules., Robert K. Wise, Katherine Hendler
A Guide To Properly Using And Responding To Requests For Admission Under The Texas Discovery Rules., Robert K. Wise, Katherine Hendler
St. Mary's Law Journal
This article’s purpose is to provide a guide for properly using and responding to requests for admission under the Texas discovery rules. Requests for admission are an extremely effective discovery tool when used and responded to properly. Their use can save litigants considerable time and expense by eliminating and narrowing the issues involved in the cause of action. Often misunderstood, requests for admission are perhaps the least used of the major discovery devices available to litigants. Even though requests for admission have the potential to eliminate unnecessary proof at trial, streamline discovery and motion practice, and reduce pretrial and trial …
What Happened: Confronting Confrontation In The Wake Of Bullcoming, Bryant, And Crawford., Dibrell Waldrip, Sara M. Berkeley
What Happened: Confronting Confrontation In The Wake Of Bullcoming, Bryant, And Crawford., Dibrell Waldrip, Sara M. Berkeley
St. Mary's Law Journal
Crawford v. Washington and its progeny demonstrate the difficulty of delineating both the core and the perimeter of the Confrontation Clause. Crawford abrogated Ohio v. Roberts, forcing trial lawyers to re-evaluate the use of various types of hearsay formerly admitted upon a finding of adequate “indicia of reliability.” Later the Court issued two decisions further altering the contours of Confrontation Clause jurisprudence. Michigan v. Bryant and Bullcoming v. New Mexico. With these options, the old Roberts “indicia of reliability” test transformed into the new “primary purpose” test to identify certain testimonial statements. By significantly altering the contours of Confrontation Clause …