Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Administrative procedure (1)
- Book reviews (1)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson (1)
- Capital convictions (1)
- Case law (1)
-
- Civil Service Reform Act (1)
- Competition (1)
- Diversity (1)
- Errors (1)
- Europe (1)
- False Claims Act (1)
- Federal Communications Commission (1)
- Free exercise clause (1)
- Habeas corpus (1)
- Hamilton (Marci) (1)
- Harm (1)
- Harmless errors (1)
- Impact of Sarbanes-Oxley on Doing Business (1)
- Institutional competence (1)
- Jurisdiction stripping (1)
- Kotteakos v. United States (1)
- Legislatures (1)
- Localism (1)
- Mass media (1)
- Media ownership (1)
- Motivation (1)
- No harm (1)
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1)
- Privacy (1)
- Public interest (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Choosing Between The Necessity And Public Interest Standards In Fcc Review Of Media Ownership Rules, Peter Dicola
Choosing Between The Necessity And Public Interest Standards In Fcc Review Of Media Ownership Rules, Peter Dicola
Michigan Law Review
Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, directs the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to review its media ownership rules every four years. But the statute contains an ambiguity regarding the standard of review that the FCC must apply during such proceedings. To retain a particular media ownership regulation, must the FCC merely show that the regulation advances one of the FCC's three public-interest goals for media: competition, diversity, and localism-applying a "public interest" standard? Or must the FCC meet the higher burden of demonstrating that the regulation is also indispensable for maintaining competition, diversity, or localism at …
Sox And Whistleblowing, Terry Morehead Dworkin
Sox And Whistleblowing, Terry Morehead Dworkin
Michigan Law Review
The language of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ("SOX") leaves no doubt that Congress intended whistleblowing to be an integral part of its enforcement mechanisms. The Act attempts to encourage and protect whistleblowers in a variety of ways, including providing for anonymous whistleblowing, establishing criminal penalties for retaliation against whistleblowers, and clearly defining whistleblowing channels. Unfortunately, these provisions give the illusion of protection for whistleblowers without effectively providing it. There is increasing evidence that virtually no whistleblower who has suffered retaliation and pursued remedies under SOX has been successful. Additionally, social science research and studies of whistleblowing laws indicate that SOX is …
God Vs. The Gavel: A Brief Rejoinder, Douglas Laycock
God Vs. The Gavel: A Brief Rejoinder, Douglas Laycock
Michigan Law Review
I recently reviewed God vs. the Gavel by Professor Marci Hamilton, and she published a brief response. My review briefly summarized the book and then made three principal points, addressing Hamilton's institutional competence thesis, her "no-harm" principle, and the remarkable number of legal and factual errors in the book. In this reply, I will review each of these points in turn.
Mostly Harmless: An Analysis Of Post-Aedpa Federal Habeas Corpus Review Of State Harmless Error Determinations, Jeffrey S. Jacobi
Mostly Harmless: An Analysis Of Post-Aedpa Federal Habeas Corpus Review Of State Harmless Error Determinations, Jeffrey S. Jacobi
Michigan Law Review
Sixty years ago, in Kotteakos v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a small class of so-called harmless errors committed by courts did not require correction. The Court acknowledged that some judicial errors, though recognizable as errors, did not threaten the validity of criminal convictions and therefore did not quite require reversal. Specifically, the Court held that errors that violated federal statutes should be deemed harmless unless they had a "substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." While Kotteakos represented the Supreme Court's first treatment of the concept of harmlessness, other courts had a …