5450 research outputs found
Sort by
Class of 1955 - October
No full textBerger, E. Carey, G. G. Cash, G. J. Conklin, B. P. Clark, R. C. Dembitzer, L. Finkelstein, D. Flower, E. French, R. M., Jr. Funn, A. Q. Gladstone, W. L. Glennon, J. J. Haber, A. Hofer, W. Howard, J. L. Johnson, L. H. Katz, H. H. Liebovitz, A. Mars, H. B. Milburn, T. Neuwirth, H. D. O\u27Leary, W. R. Rappaport, S. G. Rappoport, H. A. Resnick, R. Roberto, R., Jr. Rosenblum, D. M. Salzman, S. P. Seltzer, M. Shapiro, A. Sokolow, J. Steinberg, J. Wald, B. P. Walden, E. Yepes, V. M. Zapata, M. N. Zweig, H. L.https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bls_classphotos/1061/thumbnail.jp
Class of 1960 - Evening Section
No full textAbdoo, A. Bacotti, L. Barbera, J. Bernstein, J. Binder, J. Boris, H. Brandt, A. Brathwaite, C. Bring, R. Camhi, E. Carnegie, A. Chasen, B. Corkland, A. Dachinger, H. Delukey, A. Dreksler, A. Driks, J. Dye, L. Edwards, R. Ellin, M. Faber, A. Fried, I. Friedman, A. Friedman, S. Ghobashy, O. Gilbert, M. Glasser, A. Goldman, H. Goldstein, H. Goldwag, E. Greco, B. Holly, P., Jr. Hulkower, W. Izett, B. Jacobson, H. Kachulis, L. Kessler, S. Kester, H. Klionsky, H. Koste, P. Kranz, F. Kriences, L. Lederman, H. Levine, H. Levine, I. Levy, A. Littman, R. Marshall, I. Minieri, A. Moskowitz, H. Muller, R. Newberger, M. Patrusky, B. Reifersen, B. Roth, H. Roth, M. Rubenfeld, H. Scharlin, S. Schneyman, A. Seidt, A. Seiler, I. Shore, J. Silverblatt, A. Sirowitz, H. Spagnolo, S. Spindel, H. Spreiregen, H. Stern, E. Sutton, E. Swanston, F. Topper, S. Turk, E. Tyas, E. Weinberg, M. Yorke, M. Zolkin, D.https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bls_classphotos/1071/thumbnail.jp
Class of 1969
No full textAaronson, M. Abeles, D. Abramson, J. Alderman, R. Andrerocci, W. Anfang, S. Aronowitz, C. Bannigan, E. Baraf, R. Beeber, P. Beller, B. Bennett, F. Berkowitz, D. Berkowitz, T. Berlin, M. Birbrower, B. Birdoff, D. Blank, D. Bleecker, L. Bloomgarden, P. Boockvar, A. Boyar, A. Brady, E. Breitbart, D. Bromberg, M. Brownstein, M. Bruno, E. Byrne, M. Calica, R. Carroll, E. Clayton, D. Cohen, R. Curtis, L. Davidoff, M. Deckler, J. Dickman, S. Doret, P. Dorfman, M. Dubow, H. Dulberg, S. Eisenberg, L. Eisenberg, S. Ellison, J. Ezra, J. Falcone, C. Fallon, J. Farley, J. Feingold, F. Feldman, M. Forchelli, J. Foster, G. Friedman, A. Friedman, D. Friedman, J. Frost, A. Funk, R. Gabor, A. Gasman, G. Geisler, S. Gerson, D. Gittleman, C. Golden, S. Goldhirsch, L. Goldin, A. Goldstein, F. Goldstein, S. Gordon, C. Gotlin, D. Gottfried, P. Greenberg, D. Greenfield, P. Gross, R. Gulino, J. Guttman, R. Haggerty, J. Hankin, J. Harris, M. Hecht, D. Hecht, M. Heller, D. Hoffman, E. Hogan, H. Horowitz, B. Hurwitz, M. Jacobi, M. Jacobs, D. Jaffe, H. Jaffe, M. Jay, M. Juliano, J. Jultak, I. Kalik, M. Karlsson, K. Kassan, G. Katzman, M. Kaufman, L. Kesselman, B. Kirsch, D. Klein, L. Klein, L. Klein, S. Kleinman, D. Klinghoffer, J. Kobroff, B. Koeppel, J. Korson, M. Kossin, W. Kowal, L. Kramer, B. Krat, H. Kurtz, E. Lapidus, S. Lassar, S. Lassin, B. Lefari, D. Leibel, D. Lerner, R. Levine, L. Levine, R. Levinson, D. Litwack, L. Livingston, P. Lorber, J. Lubin, W. Mackay, J. Malito, R. Marcus, L. Martin, L. Mauro, R. Mccormick, W. Messinetti, J. Meyers, R. Miller, D. Millinger, I. Modena, R. Morse, A. Murphy, W. Novack, G. Oziel, R. Parker, C. Paroff, H. Patten, B. Perez, D. Perlstein, H. Pfeffer, R. Piller, B. Pollack, S. Rappaport, K. Resnick, G. Robbins, M. Rose, L. Rosen, D. Rosen, F. Rosenberg, J. Rosenblatt, H. Rosenblatt, T. Rotter, S. Rubinstein, K. Ruditzky, H. Sadacca, S. Saft, S. Salzman, G. Samberg, J. Sawits, H. Schaeffer, L. Schatz, L. Schechter, D. Schilian, G. Schwartz, G. Schwartzberg, S. Seidel, S. Serebin, J. Shapiro, R. Shaw, A. Sheiowitz, G. Shifrin, E. Sills, A. Silverstein, F. Singer, D. Skedelsky, M. Solomowitz, M. Solove, R. Sparber, R. Spirn, L. Spitzer, C. Stadtmauer, W. Starr, M. Stockfield, H. Strom, F. Sumber, E. Sussan, T. Sutton, J. Sutton, L. Swerdloff, S. Syracuse, V. Travis, R. Udell, S. Wahrman, H. Warshawsky, I. Weinberg, H. Werne, N. White, R. Wildman, H. Wininger, M. Wolfke, K. Yudess, L. Zedeck, L.Zeff, L. Prince, J. Gilbridge, G. Hughes, M. Krutick, J. Feldman, S. Thompson, P. Silver, J. Jackson, R. Ross, C.https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bls_classphotos/1088/thumbnail.jp
Political Polarization in America: Its Impact on Industrial Democracy and Labor Law
Get PDFBy virtually all accounts, American society has become increasingly polarized during the past couple of decades. Indeed, the degree of political polarization on issues such as voting rights, gun control, abortion rights, and COVID vaccines has been so extreme that political scientists have worried about whether the conditions necessary for the United States to maintain a democratic society have broken down. This article examines this issue in the context of federal labor law and labor relations. It argues that American labor law is framed around an industrial democracy narrative that is today being sharply threatened by extant political polarization. It then sets forth a series of interventions and regulatory reforms to potentially help ameliorate this situation in the labor context, and to better advance the collective representation democracy ideal established by the US Congress when it enacted the National Labor Relations Act
Transcript – Civil Liberties: The Next 100 Years
Get PDFIn honor of Professor Susan Herman’s distinguished academic career and tenure as the ACLU’s president, a panel was held on Friday, October 13, 2023 at Brooklyn Law School and on Zoom to discuss the current state of civil liberties in the United States. The participants also discussed Professor Herman’s new book, Advanced Introduction to US Civil Liberties. The transcription below captures the discussion among Susan Herman, Erwin Chemerinsky, Ellis Cose, Anthony Romero,and Nadine Strossen. All panelists have approved of the overall substantive accuracy of this transcription. Any remaining errors in this transcript should be attributed to the Journal of Law & Policy
Taking the Land Back: How to Return Stolen Land to the Indigenous People of New York State Through Eminent Domain
Get PDFFrom the moment that European colonizers landed in North America hundreds of years ago, land rights have been stripped away from the Indigenous people of this land. Land Back is an activism and advocacy movement to regain land rights for the Tribal Nations across the United States. Returning stolen land to Tribal Nations is a form of reparations for the atrocities the United States has inflicted upon these Nations for hundreds of years. Additionally, land that is managed by Indigenous communities is proven to be more resilient against the detrimental effects of climate change, making the return of land to Tribal Nations a necessary tool in the mitigation of the climate crisis here in the U.S. This Note focuses primarily on the Tribal Nations of New York and their fight for their land back across the State. From broken treaties, lost lawsuits, and legal battles against local, state and the federal government, this Note argues that there is a need for a statutory method for Tribal Nations to obtain land rights in New York State. Through an amendment in the New York State Eminent Domain Procedure Law, the state government would be able to exercise a taking of private property and transfer the land rights to a Tribal Nation. Such an amendment would be an important step in righting the wrongs of the past and creating a more equitable property distribution to the Tribal Nations of New York State
Situating Bystanders Within Strict Products Liability
Get PDFThe largely neglected role of bystanders within products liability is reflected in the extensive scholarship of Professor Aaron Twerski—the rightly celebrated honoree of this symposium. Within Twerski’s vast body of impressive publications, his limited discussions of bystanders align with the widely held assumption that, aside from the problems they pose for the consumer expectations test, bystanders do not merit much attention within the context of products liability. Bystander injuries are much more important than is commonly recognized; one must focus on them to adequately identify the conditions under which consumer-choice doctrines properly limit tort liability. Because the varied rules of strict products liability are designed to protect consumer expectations, recovery is barred when consumers make informed risk-utility choices concerning a product attribute and consequently do not have frustrated expectations about how the product will perform in this regard. The resultant consumerist version of the assumed-risk rule bars recovery for bystanders who do not voluntarily consent to the risk exposure. This limitation of liability is problematic only when the product choice pits the interests of consumers against bystanders, with consumers protecting themselves by selecting products that shift the risk of injury onto bystanders. In cases involving these types of risk-risk tradeoffs, the consumerist orientation of strict products liability is incapable of addressing a bystander’s claim that consumers should not be given the choice in question. According to critics, this inherent limitation of the consumer expectations test merits the wholesale rejection of strict products liability. However, strict products liability complements and does not displace the default rule of negligence liability, which provides the normatively appropriate rule for adjudicating these bystander claims. By clearly demarcating the role of consumer-choice doctrines, bystander injuries help to establish the important boundary between strict products liability and negligence liability. By contrast, the negligence-based framework of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability erases the differences between consumers and bystanders, yielding a normatively confused liability inquiry that erroneously specifies the conditions under which consumer-choice doctrines should limit liability. Rather than providing a reason to reject the consumer expectations test, bystander injuries help show why the consumerist orientation of strict products liability makes it a normatively distinct body of tort law that the Third Restatement mistakenly lumps together with ordinary negligence liability
Not All Product-Caused Harm is Products Liability
Get PDFSince two important federal preemption decisions by the United States Supreme Court, those injured by warnings defects in the drugs they take may sue the manufacturer only if the patient took a brand-name drug. Those who took the generic version of the drug, which comprise approximately 90 percent of all prescriptions, cannot sue the drug manufacturer regardless of how inadequate its labeling is in explaining the risks of consuming the drug. Clever plaintiffs’ lawyers began bringing suits on behalf of their generic-drug-consuming clients against brand-name manufacturers that, under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, control the labeling both on their drugs and on generic versions of their drugs. Instead of (or in addition to) asserting products liability claims, they assert negligent misrepresentation claims against the brand-name manufacturer. In well over 100 court opinions in the last three decades, the overwhelming response has been to deny these claims for a variety of reasons. Arguably, the most prominent ground is that products liability claims must be made against the manufacturer of the product that injured the plaintiff. Such reasoning is specious because the plaintiff’s claim is not a products liability claim—it is a negligent misrepresentation claim. Courts have adopted other, equally unpersuasive reasons for denying these claims. This Article catalogs and assesses the grounds that courts provide in denying these claims, concluding that they hold virtually no water. That courts continue down this path despite the illumination of at least one contrary decision and an excellent law review article explains the epigraph to this Article: How can this be
