Law Commons^™

If We Don’T Bring Them To Court, The Terrorists Will Have Won: Reinvigorating The Anti-Terrorist Act And General Jurisdiction In A Post-Daimler Era, Stephen J. Digregoria

Brooklyn Law Review

Prior to the Supreme Court's recent general personal jurisdiction decisions in Daimler AG v. Bauman and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations S.A. v. Brown American terror victims, injured in terror attacks abroad, were able to bring their attackers and those who sponsor them into United States courts for relief. Specifically, groups like the Palestine Liberation Organization (the PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (the PA) had a history of being sued by American victims of terror. In the course of these suits, the PLO and the PA were regularly found subject to the personal jurisdiction of U.S. courts under a theory of …

“Hello…It’S Me. [Please Don’T Sue Me!]” Examining The Fcc’S Overbroad Calling Regulations Under The Tcpa, Marissa A. Potts

Brooklyn Law Review

Americans have received unwanted telemarketing calls for decades. In response to a rapid increase in pre-recorded calls made using autodialer devices, Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in 1992. The TCPA imposes restrictions on calls made to consumers’ residences and wireless phones using autodialer devices, even if they are not telemarketing calls. Congress appointed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prescribe rules and regulations to enforce the TCPA. In 2015, the FCC released an order that defined autodialer more broadly under the statute. Consequently, devices that have the potential to become autodialers in the future, even if they …

Policing In The Era Of Permissiveness: Mitigating Misconduct Through Third-Party Standing, Julian A. Cook Iii

Brooklyn Law Review

On April 4, 2015, Walter L. Scott was driving his vehicle when he was stopped by Officer Michael T. Slager of the North Charleston, South Carolina, police department for a broken taillight. A dash cam video from the officer’s vehicle showed the two men engaged in what appeared to be a rather routine verbal exchange. Sometime after Slager returned to his vehicle, Scott exited his car and ran away from Slager, prompting the officer to pursue him on foot. After he caught up with Scott in a grassy field near a muffler establishment, a scuffle between the men ensued, purportedly …

Public Interest Over Private Prejudice? The Public Interest Exception To The Defense Of Laches And The Fourth Circuit's Clean Slate, Christopher A. Mull

Brooklyn Law Review

The trademark cancellation petitions and subsequent appeals surrounding the Washington Redskins’ allegedly disparaging trademarks lay useful groundwork in determining the applicability of the equitable defense of laches in the face of a purported greater public interest. The Lanham Act gives individuals the power to petition to cancel federally registered marks that may be disparaging to a group of individuals, while also permitting trademark holders to assert the equitable defense of laches in the event of unreasonable delay and consequential prejudice. In Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, the District Court for the District of Columbia and the D.C. Circuit held that …

The New Governance And The Challenge Of Litigation Bylaws, Jill E. Fisch

Brooklyn Law Review

Corporate governance mechanisms designed to ensure that managers act in shareholders’ interest have evolved dramatically over the past 40 years. “Old governance” mechanisms such as independent directors and performance-based executive compensation have been supplemented by innovations that give shareholders greater input into both the selection of directors and ongoing operational decisions. Issuer boards have responded with tools to limit the exercise of shareholder power both procedurally and substantively. This article terms the adoption and use of these tools, which generally take the form of structural provisions in the corporate charter or bylaws, the “new governance.”

Delaware law has largely taken …