Legal Profession Commons^™

Student And Career Services Newsletter 01, Office Of Student And Career Services

Student and Career Services Newsletter

November 2020

November 2020 Newletter

Ergo

No abstract provided.

Okafor V Nweke [2007] 10 Nwlr (Pt. 1043) 521, Oluwakemi A. Dowodu-Sipe

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.

Law Library Blog (November 2020): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Law Library Newsletters/Blog

No abstract provided.

Vol. 59, No. 10 (October 26, 2020)

Indiana Law Annotated

No abstract provided.

Court-Packing In 2021: Pathways To Democratic Legitimacy, Richard Mailey

Seattle University Law Review

This Article asks whether the openness to court-packing expressed by a number of Democratic presidential candidates (e.g., Pete Buttigieg) is democratically defensible. More specifically, it asks whether it is possible to break the apparent link between demagogic populism and court-packing, and it examines three possible ways of doing this via Bruce Ackerman’s dualist theory of constitutional moments—a theory which offers the possibility of legitimating problematic pathways to constitutional change on democratic but non-populist grounds. In the end, the Article suggests that an Ackermanian perspective offers just one, extremely limited pathway to democratically legitimate court-packing in 2021: namely, where a Democratic …

“Public Use” Or Public Abuse? A New Test For Public Use In Light Of Kelo, Taylor Haines

Seattle University Law Review

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment has long been controversial. It allows the government to take private property for the purpose of “public use.” But what does public use mean? The definition is one of judicial interpretation. It has evolved from the original meaning intended by the drafters of the Constitution. Now, the meaning is extremely broad. This Note argues that both the original and contemporary meaning of public use are problematic. It explores the issues with both definitions and suggests a new test, solidified in legislation instead of judicial interpretation.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: The Court’S Premier Defender Of The Fourth Amendment, David L. Hudson Jr.

Seattle University Law Review

This essay posits that Justice Sotomayor is the Court’s chief defender of the Fourth Amendment and the cherished values it protects. She has consistently defended Fourth Amendment freedoms—in majority, concurring, and especially in dissenting opinions. Part I recounts a few of her majority opinions in Fourth Amendment cases. Part II examines her concurring opinion in United States v. Jones. Part III examines several of her dissenting opinions in Fourth Amendment cases. A review of these opinions demonstrates what should be clear to any observer of the Supreme Court: Justice Sotomayor consistently defends Fourth Amendment principles and values.

Enough Is As Good As A Feast, Noah C. Chauvin

Seattle University Law Review

Ipse Dixit, the podcast on legal scholarship, provides a valuable service to the legal community and particularly to the legal academy. The podcast’s hosts skillfully interview guests about their legal and law-related scholarship, helping those guests communicate their ideas clearly and concisely. In this review essay, I argue that Ipse Dixit has made a major contribution to legal scholarship by demonstrating in its interview episodes that law review articles are neither the only nor the best way of communicating scholarly ideas. This contribution should be considered “scholarship,” because one of the primary goals of scholarship is to communicate new ideas.

Government Tweets, Government Speech: The First Amendment Implications Of Government Trolling, Douglas B. Mckechnie

Seattle University Law Review

President Trump has been accused of using @realDonaldTrump to troll his critics. While the President’s tweets are often attributed to his personal views, they raise important Constitutional questions. This article posits that @realDonaldTrump tweets are government speech and, where they troll government critics, they violate the Free Speech Clause. I begin the article with an exploration of President Trump’s use of @realDonaldTrump from his time as a private citizen to President. The article then chronicles the development of the government speech doctrine and the Supreme Court’s factors that differentiate private speech from government speech. I argue that, based on the …

Vol. 59, No. 09 (October 19, 2020)

Indiana Law Annotated

No abstract provided.

Vol. 59, No. 08 (October 12, 2020)

Indiana Law Annotated

No abstract provided.

On Sexual Harassment In The Judiciary, Leah M. Litman, Deeva Shah

Northwestern University Law Review

This Essay examines the legal profession’s role in sexual harassment, particularly in the federal courts. It argues that individuals in the profession have both an individual and collective responsibility for the professional norms that have allowed harassment to happen with little recourse for the people subject to the harassment. It suggests that the legal profession should engage in a sustained, public reflection about how our words, actions, attitudes, and institutional arrangements allow harassment to happen, and about the many different ways that we can prevent and address harassment.

Law School News: Bright Anniversaries In Uncertain Times 10/06/2020, Nicole Dyszlewski, Louisa Fredey

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Vol. 59, No. 07 (October 5, 2020)

Indiana Law Annotated

No abstract provided.

Nebraska Transcript (University Of Nebraska College Of Law), Volume 53, Number 2, Fall 2020

Nebraska Transcript

Dean's Message - Richard Moberly 1

Professor Anthony Schutz focuses on pedagogy, research as College’s new associate dean for faculty 4

Women Lead 2020 conference spurs attendees to ‘Claim Your Power’ 6

Molly Brummond honored for her outstanding contributions to women 10

John Lenich honored for work with students 12

Bobby Larsen selected as American Constitution Society Next Generation Leader 13

Anna Shavers receives Nebraska Bar Association 2020 Diversity Award 13

Sullivan’s Tenant Assistance Project represents renters facing eviction 14

Alumni, Tenant Assistance Project, a projected conceived by alumna Mindy Rush Chipman, ’07, and professor Ryan Sullivan, ’10, honored with …

How To Fix Legal Scholarmush, Adam J. Kolber

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Fee-Shifting Statutes And Compensation For Risk, Maureen Carroll

Indiana Law Journal

A law firm that enters into a contingency arrangement provides the client with more than just its attorneys’ labor. It also provides a form of financing, because the firm will be paid (if at all) only after the litigation ends; and insurance, because if the litigation results in a low recovery (or no recovery at all), the firm will absorb the direct and indirect costs of the litigation. Courts and markets routinely pay for these types of risk-bearing services through a range of mechanisms, including state feeshifting statutes, contingent percentage fees, common-fund awards, alternative fee arrangements, and third-party litigation funding. …

Bicentennial Alumni Research Project, Indiana University Maurer School Of Law

Historic Documents

In summer 2020, eighteen incoming law students (0Ls) were chosen as IU Maurer School of Law Bicentennial Research Scholars to work with Dean Austen Parrish and Libby Steinbach (Executive Assistant in the Dean's Office) over a two-month period in June and July 2020. The scholars were asked to interview a range of alumni who volunteered to be interviewed and who have played an important role in the life of law school. Scholars were tasked with writing an alumni profile for each alumnus interviewed. This report is the result of those efforts and a compilation of the alumni profiles.

How To Fix Legal Scholarmush, Adam Kolber

Indiana Law Journal

Legal scholars often fail to distinguish descriptive claims about what the law is from normative claims about what it ought to be. The distinction couldn’t be more important, yet scholars frequently mix it up, leading them to mistake legal authority for moral authority, treat current law as a justification for itself, and generally use rhetorical strategies more appropriate for legal practice than scholarship. As a result, scholars sometimes talk past each other, generating not scholarship but “scholarmush.”

In recent years, legal scholarship has been criticized as too theoretical. When it comes to normative scholarship, however, the criticism is off the …