Law Commons^™

Blurring The Line Between Student And Employee: Exploitation Of For-Profit College Students, Michele Abatangelo

Touro Law Review

For decades, for-profit colleges throughout the United States have exploited their students through a predatory business model. In February 2022, the Education Department approved $415 million in borrower defense claims for nearly 16,000 students who attended for-profit schools finding that these schools misrepresented post-graduation employment prospects. For-profit colleges also use manipulative recruitment tactics such as targeted advertising of low-income and minority students and providing false information to prospective students about loan repayment obligations post-graduation. Some for-profit institutions also rely on student labor in their facilities rather than hiring paid employees. This review discusses why it is imperative that courts scrutinize …

Comic Books, The First Amendment, And The “Best Test” For Right Of Publicity Issues, Rachel Silverstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Litigating Epa Rules: A Fifty-Year Retrospective Of Environmental Rulemaking In The Courts, Cary Coglianese, Daniel E. Walters

All Faculty Scholarship

Over the last fifty years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found itself repeatedly defending its regulations before federal judges. The agency’s engagement with the federal judiciary has resulted in prominent Supreme Court decisions, such as Chevron v. NRDC and Massachusetts v. EPA, which have left a lasting imprint on federal administrative law. Such prominent litigation has also fostered, for many observers, a longstanding impression of an agency besieged by litigation. In particular, many lawyers and scholars have long believed that unhappy businesses or environmental groups challenge nearly every EPA rule in court. Although some empirical studies have …

The Copyrightability Of Fictional Characters: Why Harry Potter, Arya Stark, And Matrim Cauthon Are Copyrightable, Justin Scharff

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Save Our Sound Obx, Inc. V. North Carolina Department Of Transportation, Mitch L. Werbell V

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of several governmental agencies seeking to construct a new bridge in the Pamlico Sound adjacent to North Carolina’s Outer Banks. For years, state and federal agencies have put forth a massive coordinated effort to address the constant weather damage and erosion which occurs to a section of North Carolina Highway 12. The court found the agencies properly cleared NEPA’s environmental review requirements for the bridge’s construction. Additionally, the opponent-litigants’ efforts to add claims challenging the project, based on new information about a shipwreck in the bridge’s path, were futile.

Nevor V. Moneypenny Holdings, Llc: Availability Of Prejudgment Interest For Mixed Maritime Law And Jones Act Claims, Adam S. Bohanan

Ocean and Coastal Law Journal

In maritime personal injury cases, courts have traditionally seen prejudgment interest as part of the compensation due to a prevailing plaintiff. The goal of ensuring the fullest compensation possible has long been recognized as a basic principle of admiralty law. However, federal appellate courts are split over whether to award prejudgment interest on a mixed claim under general maritime law and the Jones Act. This Note explores this issue in Nevor v. Moneypenny Holdings, LLC, which was the first time the question had been raised in the First Circuit. The Fifth and Sixth Circuits have held that because prejudgment interest …

The Logic And Limits Of Event Studies In Securities Fraud Litigation, Jill E. Fisch, Jonah B. Gelbach, Jonathan Klick

All Faculty Scholarship

Event studies have become increasingly important in securities fraud litigation after the Supreme Court’s decision in Halliburton II. Litigants have used event study methodology, which empirically analyzes the relationship between the disclosure of corporate information and the issuer’s stock price, to provide evidence in the evaluation of key elements of federal securities fraud, including materiality, reliance, causation, and damages. As the use of event studies grows and they increasingly serve a gatekeeping function in determining whether litigation will proceed beyond a preliminary stage, it will be critical for courts to use them correctly.

This Article explores an array of …

Arbitration Law In Tension After Hall Street: Accuracy Of Finality?, Stanley A. Leasure

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Cause Of Action, Anyone?: Federal Equity And The Preemption Of State Law, Henry Paul Monaghan

Faculty Scholarship

I was not fortunate enough to have known Dan Meltzer well. I met Danny only a few times. We had only the thinnest of correspondence. Of his sterling reputation as a human being, I am of course fully aware. And I do know his work – all of it – thoroughly. On that point, a mountain of encomiums would iterate only a simple thought: Dan was the gold standard in federal courts scholarship. It is, therefore, a special honor to participate in a symposium to honor his memory.

In this very brief Essay, I focus on aspects of a topic …

Court Of Appeals Of New York, Courtroom Television Network, Llc V. New York, Courtney Weinberger

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Step Zero After City Of Arlington, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

The thirty-year history of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. is a story of triumph in the courts and frustration on the part of administrative law scholars. Chevron's appeal for the courts rests in significant part on its ease of application as a decisional device. Questions about the validity of an agency's interpretation of a statute are reduced to two inquiries: whether the statute itself provides a clear answer and, if not, whether the agency's answer is a reasonable one. The framework can be applied to virtually any statutory interpretation question resolved by an agency, and …

Buying A Judicial Seat For Appeal: Caperton V. A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., Is Right Out Of A John Grisham Novel, Richard Gillespie

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

The Omnipresent Specter Of Omnicare, Sean J. Griffith

Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, written for a symposium commemorating the tenth anniversary of the Delaware Supreme Court’s opinion in Omnicare, Inc. v. NCS Healthcare, Inc., I argue, notwithstanding reports to the contrary, that Omnicare is still very much with us. Although there is a line of cases that qualifies the narrow holding of the opinion, the strong reading of Omnicare, which requires a fiduciary out in every merger agreement and elevates the “unremitting” duty to remain “fully informed” to an absolute jurisprudential principle, lives on in Delaware law, animating the Court of Chancery’s controversial rulings in the recent standstill cases. Shifting …

The Uniform Commercial Code Meets The Seventh Amendment: The Demise Of Jury Trials Under Article 5?, Margaret L. Moses

Margaret L. Moses

No abstract provided.

The Chevron Two-Step In Georgia's Administrative Law, David Shipley

Scholarly Works

The Georgia Supreme Court and Court of Appeals have long accepted the General Assembly’s authority to enact legislation that establishes administrative agencies and empowers those agencies to promulgate rules and regulations to implement their enabling statutes. In addition, the Georgia Constitution provides that the General Assembly may authorize agencies to exercise quasi-judicial powers. Administrative agencies with broad powers enjoy a secure position under Georgia law.

Like federal and state administrative agencies throughout the nation, Georgia’s many boards, commissions and authorities make policy when they apply their governing statutes in promulgating regulations of general applicability, and in ruling on specific matters …

Response To Reasonable Expectations In Sociocultural Context, David G. Epstein

Law Faculty Publications

The Article starts 6 (and ends)7 with the premise that contract law should enforce the reasonable expectations of the parties. This is a hard premise to challenge.8 And an even harder premise to apply.9 The Article recognizes the two problems with applying this premise: (1) how does a court decide what expectations are “reasonable,”10 and (2) what does a court do when the contracting parties have different reasonable expectations.11 The Article then uses two cases to illustrate how “sociocultural dissonance between a judge and contracting party”12 exacerbates these problems.

Wilkes V. Springside Nursing Home, Inc.: A Historical Perspective, Mark J. Loewenstein

Publications

No abstract provided.

Maybe Dick Speidel Was Right About Court Adjustment, Robert A. Hillman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In a symposium to honor Professor Richard Speidel, a giant in the field of contract and commercial law for over four decades, this contribution argues that Speidel may have been correct in asserting that, in limited circumstances, court adjustment of disrupted long-term contracts makes sense. I assert that nothing courts have decided or writers have analyzed since the ALCOA case proves that court adjustment is wrong-headed. But, as with so many policy issues, we may never identify the "best" judicial approach to disrupted long-term contracts because resolution depends on too many variables and unknowns.

Daubert & Danger: The "Fit" Of Expert Predictions In Civil Commitments, Alex Scherr

Scholarly Works

The opinions of experts in prediction in civil commitment hearings should help the courts, but over thirty years of commentary, judicial opinion, and scientific review argue that predictions of danger lack scientific rigor. The United States Supreme Court has commented regularly on the uncertainty of predictive science. The American Psychiatric Association has argued to the Court that "[t]he professional literature uniformly establishes that such predictions are fundamentally of very low reliability." Scientific studies indicate that some predictions do little better than chance or lay speculation, and even the best predictions leave substantial room for error about individual cases. The sharpest …

Chevron, Cooperative Federalism, And Telecommunications Reform, Philip J. Weiser

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Uniform Commercial Code Meets The Seventh Amendment: The Demise Of Jury Trials Under Article 5?, Margaret L. Moses

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

"Lies, Damned Lies, And Statistics"? Psychological Syndrome Evidence In The Courtroom After Daubert, Krista L. Duncan

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

New York's Son Of Sam Law: Alive And Well Today, Steven P. Vargas

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Home Rule

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Freedom Of Speech And Press

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Stare Decisis "Exception" To The Chevron Deference Rule, Rebecca White

Scholarly Works

In this article, the author discusses how Chevron intersects with one important competing norm - stare decisis. Stare decisis counsels the Court to adhere to its own decisions, particularly statutory ones, absent substantial justification for departure. To what extent should stare decisis apply when an agency's interpretation of a statute, otherwise deserving of deference under Chevron, conflicts with a prior interpretation of the statute by the Supreme Court?

This article suggests the following answer: If the Court's prior opinion upheld the agency's interpretation as one reasonable reading of the statute, but not the only one possible, and the agency thereafter …

The Right Of Privacy And The New York State Constitution: An Analytical Framework, Edward R. Alexander

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Affordable Housing Forum, Richard F. Bellman, John M. Armentano, Alan Mallach

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Interstate Commerce Commission V. American Trucking Associations, Inc.

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.