Marijuana Issues For Voters: Studying Issues Us States Have Had With Legalizing Marijuana,
2019
Bowling Green State University
Marijuana Issues For Voters: Studying Issues Us States Have Had With Legalizing Marijuana, Kody Kesler
WRIT: Journal of First-Year Writing
In the United States, the legalization of medical and recreational marijuana in individual states, rather than the whole nation, is a great example of states being “laboratories of democracy.” Legalizing marijuana in the states first is essential to deciding how to go about the issue on the national level, once Americans are ready for it. In most states where it is legal, employees can still be fired for having marijuana in their system, even if they have a medical recommendation. The drug tests that employers use don’t test for the recent use of drugs like marijuana, but for a part …
Department Of Insurance,
2019
University of San Diego
Department Of Insurance, Sarah Marie Burgh, Joseph Cheng, J. D. Fellmeth
California Regulatory Law Reporter
No abstract provided.
Due Process Supreme Court Rockland County,
2019
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department,
2019
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division,
2019
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Due Process Pringle V. Wolfe (Decided 28, 1996),
2019
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Due Process Pringle V. Wolfe (Decided 28, 1996)
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996),
2019
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Due Process Court Of Appeals,
2019
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Supreme Court Queens County,
2019
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Double Jeopardy,
2019
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Double Jeopardy Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department,
2019
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Double Jeopardy Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Double Jeopardy,
2019
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Public Relations Litigation,
2019
Washington and Lee University School of Law
Public Relations Litigation, Kishanthi Parella
Scholarly Articles
Conventional wisdom holds that lawsuits harm a corporation’s reputation. So why do corporations and other businesses litigate even when they will likely lose in the court of law and the court of public opinion? One explanation is settlement: some parties file lawsuits not to win but to force the defendant to pay out. But some business litigants defy even this explanation; they do not expect to win the lawsuit or to benefit financially from settlement. What explains their behavior?
The answer is reputation. This Article explains that certain types of litigation can improve a business litigant’s reputation in the eyes …
State Standing For Nationwide Injunctions Against The Federal Government,
2019
Emory University School of Law
State Standing For Nationwide Injunctions Against The Federal Government, Jonathan R. Nash
Notre Dame Law Review
Recent years have seen a substantial increase of cases in which states seek, and indeed obtain, nationwide injunctions against the federal government. These cases implicate two complicated questions: first, when a state has standing to sue the federal government, and second, when a nationwide injunction is a proper form of relief. For their part, scholars have mostly addressed these questions separately. In this Essay, I analyze the two questions together. Along the way, I identify drawbacks and benefits of nationwide injunctions, as well as settings where nationwide injunctions may be desirable and undesirable. I present arguments that, although I do …
An Organizational Account Of State Standing,
2019
William and Mary Law School
An Organizational Account Of State Standing, Katherine M. Crocker
Notre Dame Law Review
Again and again in regard to recent high-profile disputes, the legal community has tied itself in knots over questions about when state plaintiffs should have standing to sue in federal court, especially in cases where they seek to sue federal-government defendants. Lawsuits challenging everything from the Bush administration’s environmental policies to the Obama administration’s immigration actions to the Trump administration’s travel bans have become mired in tricky and technical questions about whether state plaintiffs belonged in federal court.
Should state standing cause so much controversy and confusion? This Essay argues that state plaintiffs are far more like at least one …
The Private Rights Of Public Governments,
2019
University of California, Berkeley School of Law
The Private Rights Of Public Governments, Seth Davis
Notre Dame Law Review
This Essay charts the analytical and doctrinal confusion arising from the category of “proprietary” interests in state standing law. This category might be taken literally to include only the ownership of property and interests that stem from it. It might refer to interests that are analogous to those that a private corporation might litigate, or instead to any type of financial injury a state might suffer. Other possibilities would limit “proprietary” interests to those interests recognized under the common law, or only those interests recognized under private law. Perhaps the most that can be said is that “proprietary” interests should …
State Standing And Cooperative Federalism,
2019
Duke Law School
State Standing And Cooperative Federalism, Ernest A. Young
Notre Dame Law Review
State lawsuits challenging federal policy generally encounter arguments that the states lack standing to sue, either under Article III’s “case or controversy” clause or under various prudential standing doctrines. These arguments have often taken novel forms—such as claims that states’ injuries are “self-inflicted” or offset by other benefits of federal policies—that have few precedents or analogs in the standing jurisprudence governing suits by private individuals. The United States has taken the position, in other words, that states should have special disabilities in filing lawsuits that would not apply to ordinary litigants. Likewise, prominent academics have argued that uniquely narrow standing …
Foreword: Some Puzzles Of State Standing,
2019
William and Mary Law School
Foreword: Some Puzzles Of State Standing, Tara L. Grove
Notre Dame Law Review
When should states have standing? In recent years, there has been an explosion in literature on that question. Yet, even today, there seem to be as many questions as answers. In this Foreword to the Notre Dame Law Review's 2019 Federal Courts, Practice, and Procedure Symposium on state standing, I discuss a few such puzzles. First, should states have “special” standing when they sue the federal government—that is, greater access to federal court than private parties? Second, and conversely, should states have at least “equal” access to federal court, or should they face more barriers than private parties? These …
Reining In State Standing,
2019
University of Virginia
Reining In State Standing, Ann Woolhandler, Michael G. Collins
Notre Dame Law Review
In upholding standing in Massachusetts v. EPA, Justice Stevens said that states “are not normal litigants for the purposes of invoking federal jurisdiction.” While one might agree that the states are not normal litigants, that abnormality might well suggest that states should get standing less easily than private parties.
As a historical matter, states were limited in the kinds of cases they could bring in the federal courts. States typically could not litigate their sovereignty interests (their powers to govern to the exclusion of other governments), nor could they litigate their parens patriae interests (the interests of their citizens) …
Quasi-Sovereign Standing,
2019
University of North Carolina School of Law
Quasi-Sovereign Standing, F. Andrew Hessick
Notre Dame Law Review
Judges have concluded that states do not have standing based on their quasi-sovereign interests to sue the United States for not obeying the law. Two different reasons have been given. First, because a state can assert quasi-sovereign interests only in its capacity of representing its residents, a state has standing to press those interests only if it can demonstrate that its residents have suffered an injury in fact. On this view, states do not have general standing to sue the federal government for disobeying the law; they have standing only if they can show that the disobedience injured a resident. …
