Law Commons^™

Constitutional Law—Equal Protection & Due Process—Is The Arkansas Supreme Court Abandoning Judicial Federalism?, Alexander Justiss

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

This note examines the history of judicial federalism by discussing the history of its use, as well as the analytical models that have been produced by its various adoptive jurisdictions. The development of these models has given courts much authority in determining the scope of individual rights within their respective jurisdictions. Further, a discussion follows that explores the criticisms directed at the use of such authority.

This note also examines the Arkansas Supreme Court's adoption and use of judicial federalism as a necessary safeguard against governmental infringements on individual rights, particularly those involving the right to privacy. Although such cases …

Determining An Arbitrator's Jurisdiction: Timing And Finality In American Law, William W. Park

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Sending Out An S.O.S.: Public Safety Communications Interoperability As A Collective Action Problem, Jerry Brito

Federal Communications Law Journal

Symposium: The Crisis in Public Safety Communications. Held at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, December 8, 2006.

Lack of public safety communications interoperability is the result of what economist Mancur Olson called a collective action problem. In this case, the collective action problem that first responders face is caused by the federal policy of allocating and assigning public safety spectrum in a way that segregates first responders to their own bands and ultimately Balkanizes their radio systems. This Article shows that market forces can be employed to solve collective action problems, and it surveys several successful commercial interoperable …

Sylvia Maier On Human Rights In The World Community. Issues And Action (Third Edition) Edited By Richard Pierre Claude And Burns H. Weston. Philadelphia: University Of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. 543 Pp., Sylvia Maier

Human Rights & Human Welfare

A review of:

Human Rights in the World Community. Issues and Action (Third Edition) edited by Richard Pierre Claude and Burns H. Weston. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. 543 pp.

The Hague Convention On Choice Of Court Agreements: Creating An International Framework For Recognizing Foreign Judgements, Matthew B. Berlin

Brigham Young University International Law & Management Review

No abstract provided.

Of Rules And Standards: Reconciling Statutory Limitations On "Arising Under" Jurisdiction, Richard D. Freer

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Erie, The Class Action Fairness Act, And Some Federalism Implications Of Diversity Jurisdiction, David Marcus

William & Mary Law Review

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) expands diversity jurisdiction to allow most significant class actions based on state law to proceed in federal court. Hoping to limit the application of state law through class actions, CAFA's supporters believe that federal judges harbor a collective animosity toward the large, multistate class actions the statute targets. CAFA has no substantive component, and it does not tighten Rule 23's certification requirements. Nonetheless, if supporters are right about judicial preferences and their likely impact on certification decisions, CAFA will weaken the regulatory reach of state law.

Arguments about diversity jurisdiction and judicial …

Bureaucratization And Balkanization: The Origins And Effects Of Decision-Making Norms In The Federal Appellate Courts, Stefanie A. Lindquist

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine: Competing Standards Of Appellate Review, Aaron J. Lockwood

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mostly Harmless: An Analysis Of Post-Aedpa Federal Habeas Corpus Review Of State Harmless Error Determinations, Jeffrey S. Jacobi

Michigan Law Review

Sixty years ago, in Kotteakos v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a small class of so-called harmless errors committed by courts did not require correction. The Court acknowledged that some judicial errors, though recognizable as errors, did not threaten the validity of criminal convictions and therefore did not quite require reversal. Specifically, the Court held that errors that violated federal statutes should be deemed harmless unless they had a "substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." While Kotteakos represented the Supreme Court's first treatment of the concept of harmlessness, other courts had a …

Keeping The Door Ajar For Foreign Plaintiffs In Global Cartel Cases After Empagran, Jeremy M. Suhr

Michigan Law Review

In many ways, the Supreme Court's opinion of F. Hoffmann-LaRoche Ltd. V. Empagran S.A. raised more questions than it answered. Growing out of the massive international vitamins cartel uncovered in the 1990s, Empagran presented a scenario in which all parties were foreign and all conduct occurred abroad. Although it is "well established by now that the Sherman Act applies to foreign conduct that was meant to produce and did in fact produce some substantial effect in the United States," Empagran presented the Court with the first truly foreign antitrust case. It involved not only foreign conduct, but also foreign plaintiffs …

The Lotus Principle In Icj Jurisprudence: Was The Ship Ever Afloat?, Hugh Handeyside

Michigan Journal of International Law

But Lotus has perhaps drawn as much criticism as affirmation. Ian Brownlie observes that "[i]n most respects the Judgment of the Court is unhelpful in its approach to the principles of jurisdiction, and its pronouncements are characterized by vagueness and generality." Nor does there appear to be any clear consensus on the decision's core holdings; in fact, commentators have read the decision in alarmingly divergent ways. This Note avoids the legal cacophony surrounding the specific holdings of the Lotus decision, focusing instead on the Lotus principle. Scholars have persistently (and often uncritically) taken the Lotus principle at face value, citing …

Raising The Spector Of Discrimination: The Case For Disregarding "Flags Of Convenience" In The Application Of U.S. Anti-Discrimination Laws To Cruise Ships , Paul T. Hinckley

The Modern American

No abstract provided.

When Offshore Activities Become Infringing: Applying § 271 To Technologies That “Straddle” Territorial Borders, Eric W. Guttag

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Patents have traditionally been territorial creatures. The territorial nature of U.S. patents is reflected by the main infringement statute, § 271 of Title 35. For example, § 271(a) says that “whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefore, infringes the patent.”

Casenote: The Emerald Casino Fiasco, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1305 (2007), Cory Aronovitz, Jon Topolewski

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Labor Regulation, Union Avoidance And Organized Labor Relations Strategies On Tribal Lands: New Indian Gaming Strategies In The Wake Of San Manuel Band Of Indians V. National Labor Relations Board, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1259 (2007), D. Michael Mcbride Iii, H. Leonard Court

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Eagle Environmental Ii, L.P. V. Commonwealth: The Harms/Benefits Test And Appealing The Environmental Hearing Board - Who Decides The Standard Of Review, Meghan Flavin

Villanova Environmental Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Opening The Floodgates: The Roberts Court's Decision In Rapanos V. United States Spells Trouble For The Future Of The Waters Of The United States, Bill Currie

Villanova Environmental Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Virtual Worlds - Real Courts, Kevin W. Saunders

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.