Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Adjudication; hands lecture; second circuit; disagreement; administration; politics (1)
- Quid pro quo; Hobbs Act; federal funds bribery; corruption; state officials; local officials (1)
- Securities law; securities exchange act; fraud; disclosure; civil law; litigation; corporations; shareholders; common law (1)
- Supreme Court; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg; The Robert L. Levine Distinguished Lecture (1)
- Total takings doctrine; regulatory; united states supreme court; regulatory jurisprudence (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Total Takings Myth, Lynn E. Blais
The Total Takings Myth, Lynn E. Blais
Fordham Law Review
For almost thirty-five years, the U.S. Supreme Court has attempted to carve out a total takings doctrine within its regulatory takings jurisprudence. Most regulatory takings claims are evaluated under the “ad hoc” threefactor test first articulated in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York. Exceedingly few of these claims are successful. But the Court has identified certain categories of government actions that are compensable takings per se, otherwise known as total takings. This began in 1982 with Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., where the Court held that a land use ordinance requiring a landowner to …
Reviving Reliance, Ann M. Lipton
Reviving Reliance, Ann M. Lipton
Fordham Law Review
This Article explores the misalignment between the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws and the private causes of action available to investors to enforce those requirements. Historically, federally mandated disclosures were designed to allow investors to set an appropriate price for publicly traded securities. Today’s disclosures, however, also enable stockholders to participate in corporate governance and act as a check on managerial misbehavior. To enforce these requirements, investors’ chief option is a claim under the general antifraud statute, section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. But courts are deeply suspicious of investors’ attempts to use the Act …
Adjudication In The Age Of Disagreement, John Fabian Witt
Adjudication In The Age Of Disagreement, John Fabian Witt
Fordham Law Review
In the time I have here with you today I would like to offer the beginnings of an answer. It does not lie in the distance between the court’s traditions and Manton’s conduct. That would be too easy. At base, I think the answer lies in something far more subtle and interesting: the relationship between acentral tradition of the Second Circuit and one of the great questions we face as a society today. That question is how to deal with disagreement.
The Robert L. Levine Distinguished Lecture: A Conversation With Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg And Professor Aaron Saiger, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Aaron Saiger
The Robert L. Levine Distinguished Lecture: A Conversation With Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg And Professor Aaron Saiger, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Aaron Saiger
Fordham Law Review
PROFESSOR AARON SAIGER: It’s a signal honor for Fordham Law School and a personal honor for me and a pleasure to have Justice Ginsburg here tonight. We want to thank you for coming. I think I will not reiterate all of the thanks Dean Diller has offered, except to say that we are very grateful to the Levine family and deeply indebted to the students of the Law Review who have made tonight happen. The format of the evening is as follows: I will ask questions and the Justice will answer them.
Who Put The Quo In Quid Pro Quo?: Why Courts Should Apply Mcdonnell ’S “Official Act” Definition Narrowly, Adam F. Minchew
Who Put The Quo In Quid Pro Quo?: Why Courts Should Apply Mcdonnell ’S “Official Act” Definition Narrowly, Adam F. Minchew
Fordham Law Review
Federal prosecutors have several tools at their disposal to bring criminal charges against state and local officials for their engagement in corrupt activity. Section 666 federal funds bribery and § 1951 Hobbs Act extortion, two such statuary tools, have coexisted for the past thirty-six years, during which time § 666 has seen an increasing share of total prosecutions while the Hobbs Act’s share of prosecutions has fallen commensurately. In the summer of 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided McDonnell v. United States—a decision that threatens to quicken the demise of Hobbs Act extortion in favor of § 666. If …