Law Commons^™

Ending The Economic War Among States, Nathan Altstadt

Cleveland State Law Review

The United States is under siege; however, the cause is not a foreign adversary. Rather, infighting among states to attract and retain big businesses is jeopardizing the Nation’s economic prosperity.

States compete for businesses, using tax incentives, hoping to capitalize on the benefits these businesses represent. Benefits include improved job growth numbers, a future increase in tax revenue, or, simply, elevated political clout. While competition can lead to a more efficient use of resources, unregulated competition between states for businesses does not illustrate this theory. A national auction for a business, where states are blind to rival offers, may, and …

Blockchain Symposium Introduction: Overview And Historical Introduction, Brian Ray

Cleveland State Law Review

Imagine a world where human drivers can access on-demand micro-insurance contracts tailored to cover only the actual time spent driving. How about a secure, decentralized identity system that allows individuals to purchase a vehicle and obtain insurance without sharing unnecessary private information exposing it to cyber criminals? Take that a step further and consider a system of driverless cars that transact with autonomous gas stations and take payments directly from passengers. These are some of the fascinating applications that blockchain technology could enable. But these applications give rise to significant technical, social, and legal questions, all of which we explored …

Conceptualizing The Regulation Of Virtual Currencies And Providers: Friction Points In State And Federal Approaches To Regulating Providers Of Payments Execution And Custody Services And Products In The United States, Sarah J. Hughes

Cleveland State Law Review

This essay evaluates the state of regulation by the United States government and State legislatures of participants in emerging virtual-currency businesses. It points to friction points as both the federal government and the States experiment with their own regulatory authority over virtual-currency businesses and provides a taxonomy of differing approaches to regulating such businesses. The essay takes the position that the States need to act in the near term if they wish to maintain their longstanding role as regulators of non-depository providers of financial products and services—or they risk being preempted by Congress or federal regulatory actions. This essay also …

Collaborative Approaches To Blockchain Regulation: The Brooklyn Project Example, Patrick Berarducci

Cleveland State Law Review

Today, I am going to discuss, at a high level, blockchain technology—what it is, what are its unique features that could revolutionize markets and economies, and how it could impact law and regulation. That is a lot to cover—far too much in the time allotted. So I will keep things at a very high level and hopefully pique some interest in everyone to dig deeper on their own.

Smart Contracts In Traditional Contract Law, Or: The Law Of The Vending Machine, Jonathan Rohr

Cleveland State Law Review

Smart contracts are the new norm, yet state legislatures and courts have not developed set rules and answers to legal disputes that these contracts create. Is traditional contract law sufficient? Or should we create an entirely new legislative or common law scheme to deal with these disputes? The common law has proven to be successful in dealing with new technologies and contracts, particularly because of its flexibility. Although a major overhaul may be in the future, there are still solutions that we can find today with the current legal landscape given the state of contract law and its evolution over …

Looking Through The (Mis)Classifieds: Why Taskrabbit Is Better Suited Than Uber And Lyft To Succeed Against A Worker Misclassification Claim, Joseph W. Mchugh

Cleveland State Law Review

In the highly competitive gig-economy, companies are constantly trying to leverage whatever they can to gain a competitive advantage over competitors. One method of doing so is saving on employment costs by classifying workers as independent contractors. There are two ways to accomplish this: (1) structure the business as an internet-based marketplace or platform; or (2) structure the relationship between the business and the worker in a way that ensures the worker remains classified as an independent contractor under either the common law control test or the economic realities test. Both Uber and Lyft have faced accusations of intentionally misclassifying …

Dikai Emporikai: A Response To Alberto Maffi, Mark J. Sundahl

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

No abstract provided.

Year 2000 Hurdles And Controversies, Michael D. Schindler

Cleveland State Law Review

This article examines the hurdles and controversies of the Year 2000 problem. First, some background on the "Millennium Bug" explains the nature of the problem, how to fix it, and what it will cost. Next, the article discusses recent Year 2000 litigation. Then the article suggests that companies should implement a legal strategy to avoid potential liability by performing a legal audit of the Year 2000 problem. Additionally, the UCC and case law analysis are used to explain possible causes of action and who the plaintiffs and defendants will be. Other key legal issues analyzed are SEC disclosure requirements, insurance …

Single-Employer Profit Sharing Plans: Should A Break In Service That Occurs Because Of A Natural Disaster Result In The Forfeiture Of A Plan Participant's Nonvested Profit Sharing Benefit, Marie Ellen Haynes

Cleveland State Law Review

Most profit sharing plans provide that the nonvested portion of an employee's profit sharing benefit can be forfeited when the employee incurs a break in service. A break in service often results in termination. Employees can also break their service with an employer by quitting, retiring, dying, becoming disabled, getting laid-off, or being discharged for cause. Some of these methods of incurring a break from service are voluntary while others are involuntary. Whether an employee's profit sharing benefit can be forfeited may depend on whether his break in service was voluntary or involuntary. The issue that will be addressed here …