Law Commons^™

The Right Of Confrontation: Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Right Of Confrontation: Part I, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Limitations On Obtaining Evidence For Scientific Analysis, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Ohio Rules Of Evidence: Part V, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Ohio Rules Of Evidence: Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Ohio Rules Of Evidence: Part Iv, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Revolution In Corporate Governance, The Monitoring Board, And The Director's Duty Of Care, George W. Dent

Faculty Publications

The theory of corporate governance underwent a revolution in the 1970's. Theorists finally abandoned the myth that a public corporation' is managed by its board of directors, and constructed a new model under which the corporation is managed by its executive officers, and the board, dominated by outside directors, monitors management's performance. This new "monitoring model" has gained wide acceptance among commentators, and several of its elements have been adopted by many public corporations. Even those commentators who do not enthusiastically embrace the entire monitoring model tend to agree that monitoring management is a significant board function.

But expositions of …

The Ohio Rules Of Evidence: Part Iii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Power Of Directors To Terminate Shareholder Litigation: The Death Of The Derivative Suit?, George W. Dent

Faculty Publications

This article will analyze the problems raised by the board's attempt to terminate shareholder suits and will advance proposals to deal with those problems.

The Competitive Advantages Explanation For Interbrand Restraints: An Antitrust Analysis, Peter M. Gerhart

Faculty Publications

This article argues that antitrust doctrine concerning intrabrand restrictions is unsatisfactory because the economic theory of intrabrand restrictions has been only partially developed and articulated. An unfilled and largely unacknowledged analytical gap exists between the view that intrabrand restraints are generally anticompetitive and the view that intrabrand restraints are generally efficiency-producing. That gap is the failure to explore how a manufacturer benefits from intrabrand restraints other than by increasing the profitability of his dealers. This article attempts to fill that gap by drawing on the theory of imperfect competition to explain why manufacturers find it profitable to restrict intrabrand competition …

Note, United States V. Progressive, Inc.: The Faustian Bargain And The First Amendment, Jonathan L. Entin

Faculty Publications

Note discussing United States v. Progressive, Inc.

Scientific Evidence - Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Limits On State Regulatory And Protectionist Policies, Peter M. Gerhart

Faculty Publications

My theme throughout is this: Although the Supreme Court's sometimes timid review of state regulatory legislation may be explained by its continued allergic reaction to economic due process review, that timidity is often unwarranted because the Constitution does embody several principles that protect the free market from some forms of state intervention.

Scientific Evidence - Part I, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Comment, Rationalizing Liability For Nondisclosure Under 10b-5: Equal Access To Information And United States V. Chiarella,, Juliet P. Kostritsky

Faculty Publications

Chiarella provided the Second Circuit with an opportunity to resolve an important issue on which there previously had been no square holding: whether a person who is not an insider and has no inside knowledge about the company whose securities he is trading nevertheless has a duty to disclose nonpublic material information in his possession about impending stock market events. The court viewed such a person as a "market insider"'" and found a duty to disclose. To evaluate the propriety of imposing liability in this situation, this comment will first trace the development and expansion of liability for nondisclosure under …

The Ohio Rules Of Evidence: Part I, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Joinder And Severance, Paul C. Giannelli, Peter Joy

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The United States Supreme Court: The 1978-79 Term, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Note, South Dakota V. Brown: Judicial Enforcement Of Governor's Duty To Extradite Fugitives, Kevin C. Mcmunigal

Faculty Publications

This Note focuses on the Brown court's analysis of the issue of state court enforcement of the gubernatorial extradition duty imposed by the Extradition Act. It examines the court's construction of the Act, as well as the court's initial decision to frame the basic question addressed as solely one of statutory interpretation. The conclusion reached is that the Brown court's analysis is a product of result-oriented judicial reasoning. This Note does not address the court's handling of enforcement of the federally imposed duty nor the theoretical justifications for gubernatorial discretion in extradition of interstate fugitives

Character Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Note, Antitrust Law – Municipal Immunity – Application Of The State Action Doctrine To Municipalities - City Of Lafayette V. Louisiana Power & Light Co., Juliet P. Kostritsky

Faculty Publications

This noted discusses City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.

The Ohio Bill Of Rights, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Eyewitness Identifications, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Polygraph Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Credibility Of Witnesses, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Proposed Ohio Rules Of Evidence: The General Assembly, Evidence, And Rulemaking, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

The Ohio Supreme Court has twice promulgated and the Ohio General Assembly has twice disapproved the proposed Ohio Rules of Evidence. Moreover, the office of the Attorney General has opposed the proposed Rules in an article published in this review. The author examines the arguments against the Rules and concludes that the supreme court has the constitutional authority to prescribe most rules of evidence and that the General Assembly should accept the proposed Rules with amendments.

The New York Stock Exchange Minimum Commission Rate Structure: Antitrust On Wall Street, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.