Law Commons^™

Why Arkansas Act 710 Was Upheld, And Will Be Again, Mark Goldfeder

Arkansas Law Review

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. - ironically, not Mark Twain The recent Eighth Circuit ruling in Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip, the lawsuit revolving around an Arkansas antidiscrimination bill, has led to a lot of (at best) confusion or (at worst) purposeful obfuscation by people unwilling or unable to differentiate between procedural issues and the constitutional merits of a case. In other words, reports of the bill’s death have been very much exaggerated.

Beyond Walls And Fences: Exploring The Legal Geography Of Gated Communities In Mixed Spaces, Manal Totry-Jubran

Journal of Law and Policy

In the last three decades, a new type of physical seclusion has appeared around the world: the gating and walling of urban and suburban spatial residences. This phenomenon, led mainly by dominant socio-economic groups, is referred to as “gated communities.” This article focuses on the legal challenges that gated communities raise in ethnocratic societies that share a legacy of segregation and of unequal distribution of land. The main argument is that, due to this legacy, the legality of gated communities and walls that separate communities generate legal debates that goes beyond classic legal claims of rights violations of non-residents of …

Beyond Walls And Fences: Exploring The Legal Geography Of Gated Communities In Mixed Spaces, Manal Totry-Jubran

Journal of Law and Policy

In the last three decades, a new type of physical seclusion has appeared around the world: the gating and walling of urban and suburban spatial residences. This phenomenon, led mainly by dominant socio-economic groups, is referred to as “gated communities.” This article focuses on the legal challenges that gated communities raise in ethnocratic societies that share a legacy of segregation and of unequal distribution of land. The main argument is that, due to this legacy, the legality of gated communities and walls that separate communities generate legal debates that goes beyond classic legal claims of rights violations of non-residents of …

So Help Me God: A Comparative Study Of Religious Interest Group Litigation, Jayanth K. Krishnan, Kevin R. Den Dulk

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

When Courts Determine Fees In A System With A Loser Pays Norm: Fee Award Denials To Winning Plaintiffs And Defendants, Theodore Eisenberg, Talia Fisher, Issi Rosen-Zvi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Under the English rule, the loser pays litigation costs whereas under the American rule, each party pays its own costs. Israel instead vests in its judges full discretion to assess fees and costs as the circumstances may require. Both the English and the American rules have been the subjects of scholarly criticism. Because little empirical information exists about how either rule functions in practice, an empirical study of judicial litigation cost award practices should be of general interest. This Article presents such a study in the context of Israel’s legal system. We report evidence that Israeli judges apply their discretion …

Slides: Water Footprints: Consciousness Raising Meets Risk Management, Steve Malloch

Western Water Law, Policy and Management: Ripples, Currents, and New Channels for Inquiry (Martz Summer Conference, June 3-5)

Presenter: Steve Malloch, Senior Western Water Program Manager, National Wildlife Federation, Seattle, WA

38 slides

Creating A Public Defender System In The Shadow Of The Israeli – Palestinian Conflict, Kenneth Mann, David Weiner

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

So Help Me God: A Comparative Study Of Religious Interest Group Litigation, Jayanth K. Krishnan, Kevin R. Den Dulk

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

International Law-Legal Capacity Of The United Nations-Assertion Of Claim In Behalf Of Its Agents, Paul E. Anderson S. Ed.

Michigan Law Review

In a decision handed down April 11, 1949, the court unanimously answered question I(a) (Can the United Nations sue for damages done to itself?) affirmatively. Question I(b) (Can the United Nations sue for damages done to its agents?) was also answered in the affirmative, but over the dissent of four judges. On question II, the majority of the court asserted that a conflict between the agent's national state and the United Nations would be avoided because the United Nations would be claiming only for breach of the obligation due to it.