7044 research outputs found
Sort by
CERCLA Cleanup 2019.08.22 Response from Navy re Remedial Goals and PRG vs. RESRAD
Get PDFAugust 22, 2019 response from the Navy to Greenaction’s June 28 letter pointing to various inadequacies in the Navy’s review of protectiveness in the remedial design for the cleanup at the Shipyard. (2 pages
CERCLA Cleanup 2019.06.28 Navy use of PRG vs. RESRAD
Get PDFJune 28, 2019 letter to Laura Duchnack, BRAC PMO, requesting meaningful public participation and challenging the use of RESRAD. (18 pages
Civil Commitment and the Mental Health Care Continuum: Historical Trends and Principles for Law and Practice
Get PDFAn apparent shortage of psychiatric beds in many areas has created a situation in which involuntary commitment may be seen as a virtual entitlement—a way to prioritize intensive mental health services for individuals who would have difficulty accessing these services otherwise. Constraints on access greatly influence involuntary commitment practice and policy. Outpatient commitment, commonly termed “Assisted Outpatient Treatment” (AOT), may serve as a portal to services in some communities, using the legal leverage of commitment law.
To meet these challenges in a shifting policy landscape, some guidance is needed to assist state policymakers and practitioners in reforming, implementing, and appropriately targeting commitment law and practice—both inpatient and outpatient—to the small proportion of adults who require and may benefit from its use. Part I of this report reviews the history and current status of involuntary commitment in the United States. Part II sets forth expert consensus principles to guide the optimal, ethical use of commitment. Part III provides practical tools— briefly stated guidelines and a checklist of requirements—to assist policy makers and others responsible for reforming or implementing civil commitment laws or systems
Assembly Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review Mid-Session 2019 Legislative Summary
Get PDFSolano County’s Juvenile Diversion Program: Diverting Mentally Ill Youth Offenders
Get PDFIn June 2015, Solano County was awarded a budget grant through the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction (MIOCR), grant program by the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC), in the sum of $761,322 to reduce recidivism of juvenile mentally ill offenders. The award provided funding to implement and sustain early intervention and diversion programs for juvenile mentally ill offenders. The Solano County Youth Diversion program, a multi-agency collaboration program, seeks to provide early intervention services and programs to non-serious juvenile offenders whom may be experiencing issues associated with mental health. Diverting youth from the juvenile justice system by providing necessary mental health services and instilling positive behaviors, such as accountability and the promotion of school activities or functions, are the overall goals of this program. A review of scholarly literature relevant to this study will seek to provide further knowledge into the topic of recidivism of juvenile offenders with mental illnesses and the effectiveness of the juvenile diversion program in Solano County. Data will be collected from a multitude of agencies involved in this program to measure the Solano County Diversion program’s overall effectiveness in preventing juvenile recidivism. Results of the study may provide further knowledge into whether the Solano County Youth Diversion program has been an effective early intervention and prevention tool in preventing youth recidivism in mentally ill offenders
A Patent Reformist Supreme Court and Its Unearthed Precedent
Get PDFThis paper examines the twenty-eight Supreme Court opinions overruling the Federal Circuit since 2000 and quantifies their rationales to discover that, while these reasons are often invoked, the Supreme Court’s most common rationale is that the Federal Circuit has disregarded or cabined its older precedent from before the 1982 creation of the Federal Circuit, from before the 1952 Patent Act, and even from before the 20th Century. The Court has relied on this rationale in twenty-one of the twenty-eight cases. The paper then seeks to probe beneath the surface level patterns to discover the deeper roots of the discord between the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.
Constitutional law scholars have observed that the Supreme Court’s policy preferences are the primary, unstated motivation behind its decisions. The Court writes opinions that rely on the flexible tools of precedent and stare decisis in order to implement its policy choices while maintaining its institutional reputation for neutrality. The Court does this by influencing precedent vitality; the Court selects which of its precedent to rely upon and augment and which of its precedent to distinguish and narrow. This process runs in direct conflict with the Federal Circuit, a court that was originally conceived and viewed by some of its members as a court intended to bring uniformity to patent law in a way that would reinvigorate patent rights. The Federal Circuit would implement the 1952 Patent Act in a way that would draw patent law out of the nineteenth century. But for the Supreme Court, the 1952 Act was a mere codification of patent law as developed by the courts for over a hundred years. Hence, the Federal Circuit seeks to influence precedent vitality at direct cross-purposes with the Supreme Court. The result of the Supreme Court’s project has been a new era of common law patent reform in favor of accused infringers, which is gaining momentum as the Supreme Court decides far more patent cases than it has since the passage of the Patent Act of 1952
Perennial Beauty #6
No full texthttps://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/perennial_beauty/1006/thumbnail.jp
Perennial Beauty #9
No full texthttps://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/perennial_beauty/1010/thumbnail.jp
10th Annual Chief Justice Ronald M. George Distinguished Lecture: Judicial Insights with Judge Michelle T. Friedland
Get PDF5:00 p.m. WELCOME — Anthony Niedwiecki Dean, Golden Gate University School of Law
LAW REVIEW INTRODUCTION — Stephanie Nathaniel (JD 19) Editor-in-Chief, Golden Gate University Law Review. Nicholas Joy (JD 19) Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation: The Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act Was Unveiled But Congress Still Has Work To Do. Corey Timpson (JD 19) Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions: The Ninth Circuit Maintains Archaic View That Alcoholism is a Moral Character Flaw.
5:30 p.m. INTRODUCTIONS Jennifer Babcock Associate Professor, Golden Gate University School of Law
5:40 p.m. IN CONVERSATION Hon. Michelle T. Friedland Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Alexandra Robert Gordon Judge, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.
6:40 p.m. CLOSING REMARKS Anthony Niedwiecki Dean, Golden Gate University School of Law
6:45 p.m. REFRESHMENTS SERVE