5450 research outputs found
Sort by
Class of 1965 - Day Section
No full textAckerman, M. Alperin, L. E. Arkow, R. S. Aronwald, W. I. Asher, A. Bandier, M. N. Bass, S. E. Berkowitz, L. J. Berman, T. Biondi, D. R. Blee, R. A. Block, M. Brett, E. A. Bruder, W. P. Bush, R. D. Chielli, A. Cohen, A. C. Colton, W. A., Jr. Darlington, C. F. Dinkes, W. Finger, W. L. Fishman, B. M. Frankel, B. J. Fried, B. J. Furman, L. D. Galant, P. M. Gilman, D. Goldenthal, M. B. Goldstein, B. S. Goldsweig, R. Goldsweig, A. N. Gordon, I. J. Gradinger, E. B. Gralitzer, A. M. Greenberg, N. I. Greenspan, R. P. Gross, N. J. Gruberg, M. S. Haberman, A. M. Harris, M. S. Hauptman, M. R. Hirsch, N. H. Hirschman, D. R. Hornblass, J. Hufjay, R. A. Kaplan, H. W. Katz, L. K. Katz, M. Kaye, L. Kelly, W. A. Keogh, P. K. Kessler, G. Kirschbaum, G. S. Koff, H. M. Koren, S. M. Habor, N. Hill, S. R. Kornheiser, M. H. Koshel, H. A. Lehman, D. L. Levin, J. M. Licht, S. M. Lipetz, R. E. Lutwin, J. M. Mandel, M. J. Pearce, A. Podell, J. Levine, G. S. Rosenbaum, R. Postman, A. L. Tlumak, R. Mandell, A. Margareten, L. J. Mastrodomenico, E. F. Mehlman, P. W. Mencher, H. Milman, L. A. Mogelof, J. S. Molliver, L. S. Mukamal, S. S. Munson, N. K. Natter, H. Nisnewitz, D. Z. O\u27Neal, T. J. Orenstein, S. A. Parilla, J. G. Pelinsky, M. Perman, H. S. Pressman, A. Rappaport, B. C. Raskin, E. S. Reich, G. Reisch, R. J. Rosenbaum, E. M. Rothkopf, D. R. Sable, D. B. Samnick, N. K. Schneider, L. R. Schneider, N. M. Segal, D. C. Shestack, S. G. Skoller, I. I. Slater, M. E. Solinski, R. W. Stackel, S. Stenzel, R. D. Stoll, R. S. Strauss, A. A. Sunshin, R. I. Tantleff, I. Teller, B. J. Tenenbaum, J. D. Thanasoulis, T. Tocker, P. H. Verchick, S. H. Weidenbaum, R. C. Weinberg, J. Weiner, L. M. Weingard, L. J. Wiener, R. N. Woloshin, M. A. Yankwitt, A. Yelemik, R. G. Zaretsky, R. S. Zinker, E. Zonon, B. I.https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bls_classphotos/1080/thumbnail.jp
Class of 1966 - Day Section
No full textAdelman, M. Advocate, M. Albin, A. L. Andreozzi, K. J. Asness, B. Axelrod, C. P. Bailowitz, R. S. Bandes, B. S. Bass, H. L. Bellitto, R. B. Benjamin, K. B. Berengarten, R. Berk, R. E. Berman, I. L. Berman, J. B. Berman, S. P. Berzner, S. L. Bessin, S. A. Betzler, K. R. Bialek, J. Bivona, J. C. Bluth, L. N. Breslow, R. H. Brutten, A. I. Burstein, H. W. Capone, J. J., Jr. Cohen, B. B. Costigan, G. B., Jr. Davison, I. S. Ebenstein, J. S. Ehrenreich, M. J. Eisenberg, S. D. Epstein, M. Fabricant, H. D. Factor, J. B. Fardella, R. Farkas, A. L. Feit, E. M. Feldman, S. Finegold, A. S. Finkelstein, S. H. Fishman, H. M. Forman, N. Frank, W. Freeman, G. Freiser, L. M. Freiser, M. I Friedman, H. L. Fuchs, W. W. Garfinkel, M. H. Gastman, M. I. Gershon, M. W. Gittelsohn, M. O. Glick, D. M. Goldfarb, C. Goldman, M. B. Grajales, D. Gullo, B. S., Jr. Harman, D. J. Harnick, S. I. Harris, M. J. Hausch, R. H. Hecker, A. Heller, R. Huberman, M. Janowitz, N. Johnson, S., Jr. Joy, S. N. Kaplan, S. B. Karp, I. M. Katims, J. D. Kaye, R. Kleinman, J. Kleinman, S. F. Kobrick, S. H. Koondel, I. S. Korson, G. P. Kurland, L. G. Lahr, B. A. Laks, E. M. Lapidus, H. L. Lasky, J. M. Lauer, H. Lazarus, H. M. Lebron, P. L. Lefkowitz, R. A. Lehrer, J. Leitner, J. M. Levine, M. Light, W. M. Lipton, E. A. Lusthaus, R. S. Makrides, A. Markhoff, P. M. Melman, D. Meyers, D. L. Michelman, S. B. Middler, P. Miller, D. P. Miller, E. G. Minsky, M. N. Narker, S. R. Nash, B. Nathanson, M. Neufeld, R. North, S. E. Nussbaum, J. N. Ornstein, R. M. Peterson, R. B. Pianin, R. L. Pitler, R. Pomerantz, R. J. Popkin, I. Postel, I. Rosenberg, M. Sanders, S. J. Satz, J. R. Scheichet, D. I. Schnee, M. Schulman, R. D. Schwartz, M. Schwartz, R. P. Schwefel, M. S. Selig, B. E. Shafran, L. N. Shalon, H. M. Shanahan, M. H. Shiffman, H. G. Shinberg, B. N. Siegel, D. M. Siegel, J. J. Siegel, M. J. Siegel, W. Sitkoff, S. Sitomer, S. J. Slate, J. S. Sobel, H. R. Staller, H. R. Stein, J. Stengel, S. S. Stonehill, R. Strauss, N. L. Trattner, J. B. Vogel, B. H. Wapnick, K. J. Warokomski, H., Jr. Weiswasser, H. H. Wolpoff, J. Yavarkovsky, D. Young, J. M. Zik, I.https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bls_classphotos/1082/thumbnail.jp
Tribal Sovereignty Preempted
Get PDFIn June of 2022, the US Supreme Court held in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta that a state may prosecute a non-Indian for a crime committed against an Indian within Indian country. That decision effectively overruled Worcester v. Georgia, an 1832 landmark case in which Chief Justice Marshall said that state law “can have no force” in Indian country. Although the conventional wisdom about Castro-Huerta sees the case as a radical departure from first principles of federal Indian law, this article argues that Castro-Huerta is the natural—although deeply deplorable—next step in a long line of Supreme Court cases expanding state governmental authority within Indian country. Additionally, this line of cases mirrors a separate line restricting tribal governmental authority within Indian country. Through a critical examination and reinterpretation of these two decisional lines, this article demonstrates how the Supreme Court over the last half century has systematically privileged state interests and the interests of non-Indian individuals over tribal interests. In so doing, the Court has arrogated to itself the political function, formerly exercised only by Congress, of defining tribal sovereignty. This article concludes with a call for Congress to reject the Court’s relentless subordination of Indian interests to non-Indian interests and to reassert its role in defining and defending a robust conception of tribal sovereignty
Order of Protection or Deportation? How Civil Orders of Protection Entangle Noncitizens and their Families in the Immigration and Criminal Legal Systems, Creating the Harm That They Were Intended to Prevent.
Get PDFA civil protection order can act as an important form of relief for an individual experiencing violence; however, it can also bring extreme complications and consequences for noncitizens. Unlike its intended purpose as a remedy separate from punitive state systems, civil protection orders can replicate the harm of the criminal legal system for noncitizens—barring someone from gaining immigration status, delaying applications, impacting international travel, and at its worst, resulting in deportation. Despite the high stakes nature of these proceeding, for the most part, there is no right to assigned counsel in civil protection order cases. As a result, many individuals proceed pro se. Therefore, it is likely that many noncitizens go through this process without fully understanding their own rights or the potential consequences for their family. This note aims to look at how the intersection of the immigration, criminal, and family legal systems leaves noncitizens--on both sides--particularly vulnerable to harm through civil protection orders. The note suggests that expanding the right to assigned counsel in civil protection order cases is essential, but that ultimately more is needed. Intervention at each stage of the process—prior to contact with the family regulation system, the temporary order stage, the full order stage, and the post-order period--must occur. Finally, it concludes by considering how the only true effective way to address this harm is by disentangling and dismantling these systems
Kneecapping Scalping: Ending the Predatory Scourge Plaguing E-Commerce Using Unfair Practice Frameworks
Get PDFConcert goers and sports fans are no longer the only people forced to pay absurdly marked up prices. From baby formula to video game consoles, scalping dominates the sale of goods online. Yet existing frameworks for antiscalping—specifically their relentless focus on tickets, bots, and hidden fees—fundamentally fail to address the parasitic profiteering that underpins scalping in the modern economy. We cannot understand the scope of harms posed by pernicious online resale if we focus purely on the minutiae of ticket markets and technological exploitation—the sheer number of industries affected by scalping and size of the market failure it causes demand action. The wheel, however, does not need to be reinvented. This note, after illustrating the scale of the scalping problem and shortcomings of both public and private antiscalping regimes, argues that scalping constitutes an unfair and deceptive act and practice under the FTC Act and (state level) Little FTC acts. It then outlines how a public sales record and resale restrictions—two solutions that have existed and been successfully used for decades—can enhance unfair and deceptive practice enforcement and ultimately kneecap the practice of scalping
The Sword, The Shield, and The Jab: How Nato Can Bypass the UN and World Health Organization to Help Control and Prevent Future Pandemics
Get PDFAn autopsy of the world’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic reveals many preexisting conditions that only exacerbated the crisis. Chief among them are the failures and obfuscations of the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO is sick with corruption, incompetence, or at very least riddled with dysfunction. This is not the first time the WHO has proven itself unable to meet the demands of global health initiatives, let alone global health crises. Not only is this dysfunctional organization proving itself to be a money-consuming abscess, but hostile powers, namely China, have used it to covertly wield influence and shield themselves from the political ramifications of poor public health policy and decisions. The WHO as a concept was not dead-on arrival, but neglect and poor execution have made this agency’s faults potentially incurable. A new agency is needed. And in this age of great power competition and a new Cold War, having such an agency on your side might be just what the doctor ordered
Climate Change and the Death of the Administrative State?: West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency
Get PDFIn recent decades, climate change events have surged in both frequency and intensity. Paradoxically, the most vulnerable and economically disadvantaged states, despite contributing the least to global emissions, face the gravest consequences. Developed nations, despite their wealth of resources, have consistently failed to act in the face of this crisis. For example, the recent United States Supreme Court Decision, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, limited the administrative state’s rulemaking authority and thus, its ability to enact necessary climate policy. This decision, based in the infamous “major questions doctrine,” asserts that administrative agencies must have explicit authority from Congress when deciding questions of vast economic and political significance – even in times of crisis. This Note, in four parts, traces the evolution of the American judiciary’s interpretation of administrative rulemaking from Chevron to the present, ultimately urging Congress to enact legislation that requires courts to defer to the expertise of administrative agencies when interpreting the law––ultimately strengthening the administrative state and its ability to fight climate change. This Note aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse surrounding climate policy and administrative law, emphasizing the imperative for coordinated efforts to address the climate crisis at both the national and international levels
Copyrighting Compositions: How Inconsistencies Within the Circumstancial Evidence Analysis Affects Musical Composition Copyright Infringement Plaintiffs
Get PDFTo resolve a musical composition copyright infringement case, courts employ the circumstantial evidence analysis. This analysis involves assessing whether the two works are substantially similar and whether the defendant had access to the plaintiff’s copyright-protected work. Despite efforts to keep pace with the rapidly changing world of music creation, these tests have fallen behind: circuits are split with respect to the way they determine substantial similarity, and courts have failed to update the access requirement in the age of the internet. Additionally, courts must adhere to the rules of either the 1909 Copyright Act or the 1976 Copyright Act, depending on which governs the specific copyright-protected work. These outdated statutes leave plaintiffs with few ways to get the most important part of any musical infringement case into evidence: the music itself. Accordingly, the circumstantial evidence analysis has historically been applied inconsistently and ineffectively. This Note explores the issues plaguing courts’ current methods and proposes an updated, uniform approach to resolving these cases
