556 research outputs found
Sort by
Trial Jurors and Variables Influencing Why They Return the Verdicts They Do - A Guide for Practicing and Future Trial Attorneys
Get PDFA Reporter\u27s Privilege in Florida: Has the Conflict Between the First Amendment and Sixth Amendment Been Reconciled?
Get PDFThis article examines the reporter\u27s privilege in Florida and the inherent conflict between the First Amendment and Sixth Amendment as it exists between the freedom of the press and the right to a fair trial. The salient question addressed is whether the conflict between the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment has been reconciled on the issue of a reporter\u27s privilege by Florida courts and the Florida Legislature. The author provides both an analytic and empirical study. Analytically, the article looks to the two amendments to define a reporter\u27s privilege and considers the history of the privilege. The article discusses early pivotal Florida Supreme Court cases, examines the Journalist\u27s Privilege Statute, and discusses how federal and Florida courts have interpreted Florida law. Empirically, the article provides the results of a phone survey that was conducted to determine whether the public\u27s attitudes and perceptions regarding this issue are consistent or contrary to the current state of the law
Law and Policy in the Global Space Industry\u27s Lift-Off
Get PDFThis article provides an overview of current developments in the commercial space industry and touches upon unsettled legal issues in space law and space property rights in particular. The article provides an analysis of the security risks, environmental hazards, and economic opportunities associated with the development of the commercial space industry. Part II gives an overview of past and present commercial and nation-state space development activities. Part III addresses the reasons underlying the ambiguity regarding space property rights in the major source of space law, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, and proposes that the international community reconsider the benefits of a public trust concept. Part IV examines the policy considerations of (1) safety and security; (2) economic justice; and (3) interplanetary rights in global space law development. Part V briefly synthesizes the facts, laws, and policy considerations discussed in this article to highlight the common goals of nation-states, commercial actors, and humanity in the global space industry development. Finally, Part VI concludes with the observation that the choices we make in global space law development today can impact the future of the human race
“Turn on the Lights” -Sustainable Energy Investment and Regulatory Policy: Charting the Hydrokinetic Path for Pakistan
Get PDFAmendments to Federal Removal Statutes: Curtailing Adjudication of Diversity Cases or Bad Faith Causes of Action?
Get PDFThis student comment explores the problem facing Florida insurers preventing them from exercising their right to litigate bad faith causes of action in federal court. This article demonstrates how the federal removal statutes, and amendments thereto, have potentially precluded insurers from removing some bad faith actions from state to federal court under diversity jurisdiction. This article details the divergence in opinion among Florida’s Southern and Middle District Courts in interpreting the federal removal statutes and concludes with a prediction of how the split may be resolved by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Lawyers Bring Big Screen Drama to the Courtroom: How Popular Culture\u27s Influence on the Law has Created the Need for Professional Witnesses
Get PDF
Global Legal Responses to Prenatal Gender Identification and Sex Selection
Get PDFOver one hundred million women in the world are estimated to be “missing” from the world’s population due to some form of gendercide. Gendercide exists on almost every continent and affects every class of people. Gendercide has traditionally taken the form of sex-selective abortion, infanticide, or death caused by neglect. Sex-selective abortions occur when a pregnancy is terminated due to the sex of the fetus. In the last few decades, technological advances have allowed potential parents to identify the gender of their baby early in the first trimester. Recently, with the advent of newer technology that allows one to choose a baby’s gender, such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (“PGD”) and MicroSort, it is possible for those who can afford it to select their child’s gender instead of resorting to getting rid of a fetus of an unwanted gender. This Article examines the issue of gender selection technology. If the technology is available to choose a child’s gender, is there any reason to restrict access to such technology? Does the answer depend upon how the technology is being used? Many countries have attempted to curb this issue through legislation restricting sex-selective abortions, and some have even gone further to restrict access to ultrasound and other gender identification technology. This Article provides a global overview of such restrictions and examines their bioethical implications. Part I of this Article discusses the practice of sex selection and its impact worldwide. This part examines the impact of sex-selective practices on birth rates in various countries, including the United States. Then, Part II outlines the technological methods available to identify or even choose a child’s gender and what this means for the practice of sex selection. Part III discusses legal efforts to restrict sex selection in India, the United States, and other countries around the world. Part IV analyzes these legal efforts through a bioethical lens, specifically giving consideration to autonomy, justice, and class issues. Although the practice of sex-selective abortion or sex selection is certainly disturbing, this Article concludes that restricting access to the technology that allows sex selection is not an effective answer
Who\u27s the Boss? A Distinction Without a Difference
Get PDFThis case note provides the factual background of Vance v. Ball State and briefly summarizes the legal precedent behind the decision. It analyzes the opinion of the Court, suggesting that the decision severely limited the essential protections against workplace harassment provided by Title VII, consequently making it more difficult for employees to prove employer vicarious liability for workplace harassment