Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Through The Backdoor: Manipulating Assumption Of Risk And Contributory Negligence To Apply In Texas Nonsubscriber Causes Of Action., Lara Brock, Javier Espinoza
Through The Backdoor: Manipulating Assumption Of Risk And Contributory Negligence To Apply In Texas Nonsubscriber Causes Of Action., Lara Brock, Javier Espinoza
The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice
Texas’s nonsubscriber law precedence and interpretation directly conflict with the plain language and legislative intent of Texas Labor Code § 406.033. The purpose of § 406.033 is to protect injured workers and to encourage employers to subscribe to the state’s workers’ compensation system. Texas, however, allows employers to opt-out. Employers who elect to opt out of the workers’ compensation system are called “nonsubscribers.” By making this decision, nonsubscribers save on the cost of paying premiums for worker’s compensation, but potentially expose themselves to total liability against injured employees who can prove his or her employer breached one of their defined …
Certainty In A World Of Uncertainty: Proposing Statutory Guidance In Sentencing Juveniles To Life Without Parole., Sonia Mardarewich
Certainty In A World Of Uncertainty: Proposing Statutory Guidance In Sentencing Juveniles To Life Without Parole., Sonia Mardarewich
The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice
In Miller v. Alabama, the United States Supreme Court held that mandatory life sentences without parole imposed upon juveniles was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court, however, did not hold it was unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile to life without parole if there was “transferred intent” or “reckless disregard.” Nonetheless, the Court effectively abolished state discretion and required sentencing courts to consider an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics as mitigating circumstances. The Court, however, did not specify what sentencing guidelines should dictate. Thus, states are now …