Digital Commons Network^™

Byu Law School Faculty Listing

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Byu Law Review Subscription Information

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Full Issue

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ai And The Erosion Of Law’S Moral Authority, Joseph Avery

BYU Law Review

Over the past decade, artificial intelligence (AI) has begun to assist, augment, and influence judicial and legislative work. At the end of 2023, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts was “confident” that technological changes would continue to transform the common law and that judicial work would “be significantly affected by AI.”

In the legislative realm, there are AI tools devoted exclusively to drafting statutes, and the use of AI by members of the U.S. Congress is now officially sanctioned. These developments have led to a focus on technical and performance-related issues with AI, including those of accuracy and reliability, …

“Absolute And Arbitrary”: How The Supreme Court’S Certiorari Power Violates The Nondelegation Doctrine, Dinis Cheian

BYU Law Review

The Exceptions Clause of Article III of the Constitution is clear that “Congress” “shall make” the rules prescribing the Court’s “appellate jurisdiction.” And so Congress did for almost 150 years. But in the twentieth century, Congress delegated its power to the Supreme Court in the form of—as Chief Justice Taft demanded—”absolute and arbitrary” discretion to pick its appellate cases. Today, under the resulting certiorari regime, the Court enjoys that unbridled discretion in selecting its cases.

Because Congress delegated its power to the Court without articulating “an intelligible principle,” certiorari jurisdiction violates the nondelegation doctrine and is unconstitutional. This Article is …

Purdue’S Side Effects: Using Due Process To Realign Mass Tort Bankruptcies, William A. Organek

BYU Law Review

In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, the United States Supreme Court held that victims of the opioid crisis could not be forced to release their independent claims against the Sacklers, who owned and controlled Purdue, without the victims’ consent. Such releases had become a controversial mainstay of mass tort bankruptcy filings. Yet Purdue was decided on narrow, textualist grounds, leaving as a side effect many seemingly disparate and difficult questions unanswered. This Article argues that Purdue and its open issues should be analyzed through a broader due process lens in tension with some aspects of current bankruptcy practice but consistent with …

Not Her Fault: Ai Deepfakes, Nonconsensual Pornography, And Federal Law’S Current Failure To Protect Victims, Taylor Percival James

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Clark Memorandum: Spring 2025, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Byu Law School Alumni Association, J. Reuben Clark Law Society

The Clark Memorandum

• Primary and Professional Identity
• Never Only Two Sides
• In Defense of Zion and Her People
• The Pursuit of Happiness

2025 Byu Law Review Masthead

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Byu Law School Faculty Listing

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Byu Law Review Subscription Information

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Codetermination’S Moment Of Truth: Overseas Workers, Jens Dammann

BYU Law Review

The idea that employees of large corporations should be entitled to representation on corporate boards, a concept known as codetermination, is gaining ground. Progressive politicians Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have proposed codetermination regimes that would allow employees to elect between 40% and 45% of board members. Moreover, an increasing number of corporate law scholars are embracing the idea of giving employees a voice in corporate governance.

However, anyone endorsing codetermination must confront a critical dilemma: whether to limit representation to U.S.-based employees or whether to extend it to overseas workers as well. The question’s practical importance is obvious given …

Full Issue

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

They Managed A Protest: Prohibitory, Ethical, And Prudential Policing Of Academic Speech, David Schraub

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Papering Justices, Michael L. Smith

BYU Law Review

Supreme Court reform is a lively topic of discussion and debate, with scholars, commentators, and politicians debating a variety of proposed Court reforms, such as term limits, additional Justices, and jurisdiction stripping. This Article adds a new idea to the mix: papering Justices. Several states permit each side to a dispute to file one motion to automatically disqualify the judge overseeing their case. These requests are to be granted automatically without any showing of facts, hearings, or further briefing. This is known as “papering” the judge. Drawing from these practices, I propose that each side to a dispute before the …

Artificial Intelligence, Autonomous Creation, And The Future Path Of Copyright Law, Peter K. Yu

BYU Law Review

Most literature at the intersection of copyright and artificial intelligence (AI) has focused primarily on what copyright law is or ought to be. Frequently overlooked is the question of what copyright law will be in the AI space. Understanding this question is crucial because the path of copyright law chosen by the United States will have a major impact on the country’s economic and technological future. This Article begins by scrutinizing two lines of arguments that have been advanced to deny copyright protection to AI-generated works: constitutional and incentivebased. The Article then discusses a third line of arguments— harmonization-based arguments—and …

The Emperor’S New Clothes And § 502(B)’S Unmatured Interest Rule, Jacob M. Hansen

BYU Law Review

When it comes to claims for unmatured interest—most notoriously make-whole provisions—the text of the Bankruptcy Code does not necessarily say what everyone says it does. The common interpretation is that the Code requires courts to disallow all claims for unmatured interest except those involving an oversecured creditor. This Note presents an alternative reading that resolves conflicts within the Code, moves away from unreliable legislative history, and reconciles circuit splits on the enforceability of make-whole provisions and unmatured interest claims in general. As discussed in this Note, this alternative reading is the more accurate one—especially from a textualist perspective.

Due to …

Innocence And Habeas Corpus: A Call For Equitable Reforms, Paige Skousen Nelson

BYU Law Review

Congress intended the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) to codify the Burger and Rehnquist Courts’ habeas corpus jurisprudence, which aimed to establish finality and innocence as gatekeepers to the “Great Writ.” But in practice, AEDPA hinders innocence claims, particularly claims of legal innocence.

This Note agrees that innocence should be one of the most important considerations in granting writs but argues that it is not as valued as Congress intended. This Note proposes two congressional reforms to reinstate innocence to its paramount role without compromising finality: first, amending the federal habeas petition rule to allow petitioners …

State Of Utah, Plaintiff/ Appellee V. Daniel Macbeth, Defendant/ Appellant : Brief Of Appellee, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (2020 –)

Appeal from a conviction of manslaughter, a second degree felony, in the Fourth Judicial District, Utah County, the Honorable Robert C. Lunnen presiding

Freyja Johnson, Rachel Phillips Ainscough, Counsel for Appellant

REBECCA BARKER, DEREK E. BROWN, JORDIN ALBERS, SANDI JOHNSON, Counsel for Appellee

Jeddie Al-Imari, An Individual; Kathleen Al-Imari, An Individual; And Jennifer Al-Imari, In Her Role As The Legal Guardian Of D.A And R.A., Minor Children; Appellants/ Plaintiffs V. Utah Department Of Transportation; Staker & Parson Companies Dba Jack B. Parson; And Does I-X : Reply Brief, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (2020 –)

Attorneys for Appellee and Defendant UDOT, Joseph E. Minnock, Anna Nelson, Attorneys for Appellee and Defendant Staker, George W. Burbidge II, W. Kevin Tanner,

Attorneys for Appellants and Plaintiff, Brad H. Bearnson, Wayman M. Stodart

Al-Imari V. Udot : Reply Brief, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (2020 –)

Attorneys for Appellee and Defendant UDOT Joseph E. Minnock Anna Nelson MORGAN, MINNOCK, RICE & MINER, L.C.

Attorneys for Appellants and Plaintiffs Brad H. Bearnson Wayman M. Stodart BEARNSON & CALDWELL Attorneys for Appellee and Defendant Staker George W. Burbidge II W. Kevin Tanner CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN, P.C.

State Of Utah V. Bridgewaters : Reply Brief, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (2020 –)

An appeal from a judgment of conviction of manslaughter, a second-degree felony; and tampering with a witness, a third-degree felony in the Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the Honorable Hogan, presiding. Appellant is incarcerated

LINDSEY WHEELER (14519) Assistant Solicitor General DEREK BROWN (10476) Utah Attorney General Attorney for Appellee

ROBERT T. DENNY (13687) Salt Lake Legal Defender Assoc. Attorney for Appellant

Cook Martin Poulson, P.C. V. Daniel G. Smith, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (2020 –)

Amended Brief of Appellee
On appeal from the Second Judicial Court, Weber County,
Honorable Cristina Ortega, District Court No. 220903740

Glenn Howard Griffin, Petitioner/ Appellant V. State Of Utah, Respondent/ Appellee : Reply Brief, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (2020 –)

Several of the State’s arguments misconstrue Glenn’s arguments. Other positions fail to address arguments that Glenn has made. This reply memorandum highlights the various deficiencies in the State’s arguments

State Of Utah V. Dean Spencer : Reply Brief, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (2020 –)

APPEAL FROM THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT, UTAH COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH, FROM A CONVICTION ON ONE COUNT OF DUI, A CLASS B MISDEMEANOR, BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE DENISE PORTER

ALEXANDRA HERLONG (18206) Assistant Solicitor General SEAN D. REYES (7969) Utah Attorney General PETER REICHMAN Utah County Attorney’s Office Counsel for Appellee

JENNIFER L. FORESTA (12212) Utah County Public Defender Assoc. Appeals Division Attorneys for Appellant

State Of Utah, Plaintiff/Appellee V. Debra Kay Youren, Defendant/Appellant : Reply Brief, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (2020 –)

Appeal from a Judgment and Conviction for one count of Exploitation of a Vulnerable Adult, a Second Degree Felony, and one count of Theft, a Second Degree Felony, The Honorable Anthony Howell presiding in the Fourth Judicial Court, Juab County, State of Utah, Case No. 191600058

WILLIAM HAINS Assistant Solicitor General DEREK BROWN Utah Attorney General Office of the Attorney General c/o Criminal Appeals Division Attorney for Appellee

ANN M. TALIAFERRO (#8776) BROWN BRADSHAW & MOFFAT Attorney for Appellant

Jade Taylor V. West Millard Mosquito Abatement District : Reply Brief, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (2020 –)

Appeal from a Final Order of the Fourth Judicial District Court in and for Utah County , Provo Department, State of Utah . Trial Judge Anthony Howell.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Justin D. Heideman (USB #8897) Norman W. Peat, Jr. (USB #17836) HEIDEMAN & ASSOCIATES

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: Gregory Hoole HOOLE & KING, L.C.

James K. Moyle Petitioner/ Appellant V. Brianna Moyle Respondent/ Appellee : Reply Brief, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (2020 –)

Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District Court, Wasatch County, Utah The Honorable Jennifer Mabey, Presiding

Bart J. Johnsen, Sarah Jenkins Dewey, Hannah Ector, Attorneys for Appellee Brianna Moyle