Law Commons^™

Should State Corporate Law Define Successor Liability - The Demise Of Cercla's Federal Common Law, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

During the 1980s and early 1990s, a series of decisions broadly interpreting the liability provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCIA) appeared destined to transform corporate law practice. CERCIA does not directly address successor liability, but the statute's complex and contradictory legislative history arguably implies that Congress wanted federal courts to apply broad liability principles to achieve the statute's fundamental remedial goal of making polluters and their successors pay for cleaning up hazardous substances.

Notably, a number of courts rejected state corporate law principles that usually limit the liability of successor corporations and instead …

Taming Terrorists But Not "Natural Born Killers", S. Elizabeth Malloy

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This Article will explore the possibility of shifting or sharing the liability
stemming from criminal activities to those who provide detailed directions on
how to commit those acts, when the publication in question has no other
redeeming value. This Article concludes that in some limited circumstances, the First Amendment should not preclude the imposition of civil liability for those who write and distribute speech that both advocates and facilitates harm to others.

Part I of this Article reviews the First Amendment and discusses the Brandenburg test and its potential application to situations involving speech
advocating socially harmful activity. Part II …

Recalibrating The Cost Of Harm Advocacy: Getting Beyond Brandenburg, S. Elizabeth Malloy, Ronald Krotoszynski Jr

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This Article explores the possibility of shifting the cost of antisocial acts to artists, writers, and musicians when individuals decide to act on a creative artist's suggestions or, in some cases, detailed directions. The Article concludes that, at least in some limited circumstances, the First Amendment should not preclude the imposition of civil liability for those who write and distribute speech that both advocates and facilitates harm to others and proposes the creation of a new category of unprotected speech activity called Harm Advocacy.