5033 research outputs found
Sort by
Karaoke Car Talk with Mark Pettit
Get PDFMark Pettit and I played our own version of Carpool Karaoke long before it became a media favorite. Mark was the quiet one, a prisoner in my car for more than forty years of driving back and forth to the Law School on the Mass Pike. We were cooped up alone together for an hour and a half almost every day, sometimes under trying circumstances, including monumental traffic jams and weather horrendiomas. Some days we had more direct conversation with one another than either one of us had with our own spouses. So I thought I’d give you a little insight into our car talk, for Mark was a very special person. You can learn a lot about another person when he can’t escape yo
Representative/Senator Trump?
Get PDFThe American presidency is a much more powerful office in 2017 than was contemplated by the Constitution of 1788. In large measure, that is because Congress has unconstitutionally subdelegated many of its legislative powers to the President. The President thus effectively functions as the Congress to a significant degree, which not only perverts the constitutional structure but also significantly raises the stakes of presidential elections. There is no good reason to expect Congress or the courts to stem the tide of subdelegation. Presidents, however, have a number of tools available to resist, and even reverse, that tide. While there is every reason to doubt the general willingness of presidents to turn down grants of authority in the name of an abstract document, there might – just might – be some perhaps counterintuitive reasons to think that President Trump may be more willing than other presidents to take the lead in reining in executive power
The Birth of the Business Corporation East and West: Eurasian Trade Institutions and their Migration 1400-1700
Get PDFhttps://scholarship.law.bu.edu/clark_speakers/1089/thumbnail.jp
Testimony on Third Party Financing of Lawsuits
Get PDFIn this written testimony, Professor Steinitz addresses bills pending in the New York State Senate and Assembly relating to consumer litigation finance. Among other things, she suggests (1) establishing a “Minimum Payment” for plaintiffs, instead of (or in addition to) flat rates or interest caps; and (2) defining the scope of application by applying an “Unsophisticated Plaintiff” test rather than by focusing on the financing amount. She also addresses other matters implicated by the bills such as whether lawyers should be permitted to provide financial advice, prohibition of prepayment penalties, registration requirements, and right of rescission in the context of consumer litigation finance
Afterword: What\u27s Next? Into a Third Decade of LatCrit Theory, Community, and Praxis
Get PDFIn this multi-vocal Afterword, we reflect-personally and collectively to help chart renewed agendas toward and through a third decade of LatCrit theory, community, and praxis. This personal collective exercise illustrates and reconsiders the functions, guideposts, values, and postulates for our shared programmatic work a framework for our daily work as individuals and teams through our portfolio of projects, which in turn emerged as a reflection and projection of LatCrit theory, community and praxis. These early anchors expressly encompassed (1) a call to recognize and accept the inevitable political nature of U.S. legal scholarship; (2) a concomitant call toward anti-subordination praxis to connect theory to action; (3) a commitment to build both intra-Latinx communities and inter-group coalitions; (4) a commitment to find commonalities while respecting difference; (5) a recognition of past critical outsider scholarship in new applications; (6) a commitment to ongoing self-critique, individually and collectively; and (7) a recognition of specificity and diversity in constructing LatCrit theory, praxis, and community. These early guiding commitments were rooted in substantive values, and accompanied by working postulates, that we likewise made explicit to help anchor our programmatic initiatives, and our mutual aspirations, over time and its exigencies
The Reliability of Evidence in Evidence-Based Legislation
Get PDFAs evidence-based legislation develops, and as technology puts more information at our fingertips, there should be a better understanding of what exactly constitutes reliable evidence. Robert and Ann Seidman devoted their professional careers to developing the evidence-based Institutional Legislative Theory and Methodology and teaching it to legislative drafters around the world. Although ILTAM was firmly grounded in – and driven by – evidence, the question becomes what evidence is reliable and a worthy input for the methodology. Further, how can the drafter avoid the misuses of evidence such as confirmation bias and naïve beliefs? We aim to give a guide for using evidence by offering examples of evidence-based legislation in practice and through a proposed hierarchy of evidence from most to least reliable:
Experiments within the jurisdiction / lessons from other jurisdictions.
Information on a topic or issue that was formally requested by the legislature or produced to the legislature under oath or under the penalties of perjury.
Studies / information provided by a government agency.
Expert or scientific studies.
Economic or mathematical models and statistics.
Information provided by special interests.
Stories, apocrypha and uncorroborated tales. We hope that this hierarchy provides a starting point for discussion to refine and improve evidence-based legislation
From Loving v. Virginia to Washington v. Davis: The Erosion of the Supreme Court\u27s Equal Protection Intent Analysis
Get PDFIn 1967, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that contained its most searing and explicit condemnation of white supremacy: Loving v. Virginia. At issue in Loving was the constitutionality of a statutory scheme in the state of Virginia that prohibited marriages between individuals solely on the basis of race. Among other things, provisions in this statutory scheme punished intermarriage between a white person and a colored person, meaning not only Blacks, but also Asian Americans and American Indians who did not fall under the Pocahontas Exception. The provisions also punished evasion of the state\u27s interracial marriage ban by Virginians who chose to legally marry each other in another state and then return to live together as spouses in Virginia. Indeed, Section 20-59 of the statutory scheme subjected individuals who violated Virginia\u27s anti-miscegenation laws to imprisonment for one to five years
Report of the ICCA-Queen Mary Task Force on Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration
No full textModern forms of “third-party funding” are no longer new to international arbitration. Recent years have seen an upsurge in the number of third-party funders, the number of funded cases, the number of law firms working with third-party funders, and the number of reported cases involving issues relating to funding. At the same time, international arbitration is increasingly used not only for disputes among commercial parties, but also disputes between states and commercial parties, and in state-to-state arbitrations. The participation of states has, in turn, focused attention from both within and outside the arbitration community on the integrity of the process, with particular focus on transparency and arbitrator conflicts of interest.
As a result of these various trends, third-party funding has increasingly drawn the attention of commentators and scholars, and even more recently of arbitral institutions, national regulatory authorities, and state trade negotiators.
Despite the increased attention, many questions remain about third-party funding in the context of international arbitration processes, most notably about potential arbitrator conflicts of interest, confidentiality, privilege, and costs issues. To address these questions, in 2013 the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA), in collaboration with Queen Mary, University of London, convened a Task Force on Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration. Since its inception, the Task Force has undertaken sustained study and discussion of relevant issues, and its findings are presented in the balance of this Report.
This introductory chapter provides an overview of the organization and work of the Task Force. This Report is the result of the collective efforts of the Task Force. The views expressed are not attributable to any particular Member of the Task Force, and all views expressed are those of the Task Force, and not of Queen Mary or ICCA, its Governing Board, or members
Sessions\u27s Bleak Asylum Ruling Sends Us Back Decades
No full text“Sandra,” a mother from Guatemala was physically and sexually abused by her husband for years. He punched her in the face, broke her tooth and raped her. Afterward, he threatened to kill her and locked her in his house for days. “Eva,” a young woman from Russia, was brutally beaten and raped by white supremacist skinheads because she was an ethnic minority. “Daniela,” at 5, witnessed the gruesome murder of her mother by gang members in El Salvador, after her mother reported gang activity to the police.
Sandra, Eva and Daniela all fled for their lives and sought asylum in the United States. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s decision on June 11 directly threatens the lives of those like them
Defining Access to Justice in International Arbitration
No full textMuch has been said and written about access to justice. While there are many ways to define the phrase “access to justice”, this brief intervention addresses access to justice in relation to paying the costs of arbitration. Thus, for this purpose, “access to justice” simply means having the financial resources or the ability to acquire the financial resources needed to bring your claim or muster your defence in international arbitration. In applying this definition, it is evident that there is an endless number of ways in which a party could have or acquire financial resources for pursuing a claim in arbitration or defending against it. For example, many parties self-finance their claims or defences. Parties may also acquire liability insurance or political risk insurance, which may include paying the costs of arbitration. Subsidiaries may be able to tap into the resources of their parent corporations. States may use their internal legal teams or tap into their treasuries to pay external law firms. A client may hire an attorney or law firm on a contingent or conditional fee basis, if permissible in the relevant jurisdiction. And then there is third-party funding