Law Commons^™

Dual Personas: Treating An Employer As A Third Party Under The Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, Brent A. Bauer

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

Disposable Immigrants: The Reality Of Sexual Assault In Immigration Detention Centers, Valerie Gisel Zarate

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

Judicial Federalism And The Appropriate Role Of The State Supreme Courts: A 20-Year (2000–2020) Study Of These Courts’ Interest Evaluations Of The Fruits And The Attenuation Doctrines, Dannye R. Holley Mr.

St. Mary's Law Journal

The current composition of the United States Supreme Court increases the probability that the Court will be more likely to side with the government with respect to identifying, evaluating, and reconciling the interest of the government versus those of the people when issues of “policing” reach the high court. This opens the door for state supreme court to independently assess individually and collectively these seemingly competing interests and potentially provide greater protections to the interest of the people.

This Article is a twenty-year study of dozens of state supreme court decisions made during the period of 2000–2020. The decisions focused …

Will The Real Mens Rea Please Stand Up: Assessing The Fifth Circuit’S Kickback Jurisprudence After United States V. Nora, John J. Locurto

St. Mary's Law Journal

Many criminal statutes require willful misconduct, yet willfulness remains an elusive concept. Its meaning and application depend as much on the outcome a court desires as the definition or legal standard a court claims to apply. Ambiguity in the required mens rea is an age-old problem with a venerable pedigree in the circuits and Supreme Court. This article considers anew the struggle to define “willfully” as that term is used in the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b, one of the federal government’s key weapons against health care fraud.

When it decided United States v. Nora and reversed the …

The Aoc In The Age Of Covid—Pandemic Preparedness Planning In The Federal Courts, Zoe Niesel

St. Mary's Law Journal

The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic created a crisis for American society—and the federal courts were not exempt. Court facilities came to a grinding halt, cases were postponed, and judiciary employees adopted work-from-home practices. Having court operations impacted by a pandemic was not a new phenomenon, but the size, scope, and technological lift of the COVID-19 pandemic was certainly unique.

Against this background, this Article examines the history and future of pandemic preparedness planning in the federal court system and seeks to capture some of the lessons learned from initial federal court transitions to pandemic operations in 2020. The Article begins by …

Misreading Menetti: The Case Does Not Help You Avoid Liability For Your Own Fraud, Val D. Ricks

St. Mary's Law Journal

Several decades ago, an incorrect legal idea surfaced in Texas jurisprudence: that business entity actors are immune from liability for fraud that they themselves commit, as if the entity is solely responsible. Though the Supreme Court of Texas has rejected that result several times, it keeps coming back. The most recent manifestation is as a construction of Texas’s unique veil-piercing statute. Many lawyers have suggested that this view of the veil-piercing statute originated in Menetti v. Chavers, a San Antonio Court of Appeals case decided in 1998. Menetti has in fact played a prominent role in the movement to …

Rethinking The Process Of Service Of Process, Mary K. Bonilla

St. Mary's Law Journal

Even as technology evolves, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Federal Rule 4, remains stagnate without a mechanism directly providing for electronic service of process in federal courts. Rule 4(e)(1) allows service through the use of state law—consequently permitting any state-approved electronic service methods—so long as the federal court where proceedings will occur, or the place where service is made, is located within the state supplying the law. Accordingly, this Comment explains that Rule 4 indirectly permits electronic service of process in some states, but not others, despite all 50 states utilizing the same federal court system. With states …

Answering The Call: A History Of The Emergency Power Doctrine In Texas And The United States, P. Elise Mclaren

St. Mary's Law Journal

During times of emergency, national and local government may be allowed to take otherwise impermissible action in the interest of health, safety, or national security. The prerequisites and limits to this power, however, are altogether unknown. Like the crises they aim to deflect, courts’ modern emergency power doctrines range from outright denial of any power of constitutional circumvention to their flagrant use. Concededly, courts’ approval of emergency powers has provided national and local government opportunities to quickly respond to emergency without pause for constituency approval, but how can one be sure the availability of autocratic power will not be abused? …