University of California Hastings College of the Law
UC Hastings Scholarship Repository (University of California, Hastings College of the Law)Not a member yet
18514 research outputs found
Sort by
Reviving the Greenbook In the Context of Failure To Protect: Assessing Risk of Harm In Domestic Violence Situations To Best Assist Battered Mothers and Their Children
No full textThis paper examines the typical responses and approaches our child welfare agencies and juvenile courts take when handling dependency cases involving families experiencing domestic violence that fall under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 300(b). All too often, when a child is exposed to domestic violence, their mothers, survivors of the domestic abuse, are adjudged to have acted negligently for “failing to protect” their children adequately from domestic violence. Unfortunately, jumping rashly to this jurisdictional finding results in the removal of countless children from their battered yet otherwise fit mothers, and, in some instances, can ultimately lead to the termination of the mothers’ parental rights.
To prevent both unnecessary removals and the revictimization of battered women, this paper calls for an excavation of the “Greenbook,” a project initiated by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) to develop practice and policy guidelines for cases where domestic violence and child maltreatment overlap, to serve as a guide once more. The hope is that child welfare agencies and juvenile courts can adhere to the Greenbook’s relevant recommendations when determining whether juvenile court jurisdiction is in fact necessary in the context of domestic violence. Ultimately, this paper sets forth a comprehensive, but not all-inclusive, risk assessment tool that establishes different tiers for intervention, considering the dynamics of domestic violence, the level of the child’s exposure to domestic violence, as well as any present protective and lethality factors. Perhaps this tool may assist child welfare agencies and dependency courts in determining when intervention is necessary, leading to better long-term safety outcomes for mothers and their children
Special Joint Meeting of Audit Subcommittee & the Finance Committee - Notice and Agenda 10/17/23
No full textPatent Term Extensions and the Last Man Standing
No full textIn 1984, with the passing of the Hatch-Waxman Act, Congress orchestrated a compromise that permanently changed how drug markets operate. This piece of legislation created an expedited pathway for generics to enter the market, and, in exchange, brand drugs could extend their patents to account for time lost during their market approval process. Although this well-configured trade was supposed to help generics enter the scene quicker, the current drug market landscape makes one question whether this legislation has succeeded in its aims. The following study explores the lifecycle of top-selling brand drugs in comparison to the vision put forth by the Hatch- Waxman Act. Using the legislation as a framework, the article examines the data of 236 top-selling drugs, quantifying the average length of patent terms and their extensions, as well as any additional market monopoly time secured thereafter. This study finds that 91% of drugs that obtain patent term extensions continue their monopolies well past the expiration of those extensions, most often by relying on secondary patents. The Hatch-Waxman Act allows drug companies to request a single extension to their patent, limited to a particular length. Nevertheless, drug companies continue to extend their protections well past what is contemplated in the legislation, costing the system a conservatively estimated $53.6 billion. The study ends with policy recommendations to impose limits on the time that can be added to the monopoly period of any drug that has already received a patent term extension. This includes a limit to the accrual of both secondary patents and exclusivities
Empowering Victims of Grand Corruption: an Emerging Trend
No full textWho is the victim of systemic corruption? The traditional answer in law is everyone and no one, or public administration itself. When state funds are misused or go missing, at the most the State is the victim. Therefore, only the State has standing to sue for, or receive restitution of, the stolen assets. But that long-held consensus is changing. Activists and lawyers have begun to argue that under systematic corruption it’s not just states, but individuals and communities as well as society as a whole that suffer losses and need to be both represented and repaired. Courts are beginning to agree, based on human rights law developed in large part in the context of atrocity crimes and now translated to the sphere of anti-kleptocracy. Prior research has focused on asset recovery in capital exporting states, and how it should be returned to the people of the looted country. This article brings together for the first time the background law and systematizes the cases in the courts of the looted country, focusing on Latin American states because they generally both suffer from top-down, systemic corruption and have been at the vanguard in marrying international human rights law, victim participation in criminal proceedings, and international anti-corruption law. It posits that victims want to participate in corruption trials not just to get reparations, but also to access the case files in order to seek information for further investigations and to monitor the diligence and strategic choices of prosecutors. Finally, it also highlights the sometimes indirect ways in which international law becomes effective in national courts, here involving not only vertical moves from international bodies to national courts, but horizontal shifts from one subject area to another
A Trip to the Border: Legal History and APA Originalism
No full textThis article examines originalist interpretations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) from the perspective of a legal historian. After ex amining two pieces of originalist scholarship, it concludes that the histor ical record may not produce narratives of enough specificity or coherence to assist the originalist project. Nonetheless, it highlights three under-examined subjects of historical inquiry that have the most potential to aid APA originalists: the nature of administrative procedure during the first three decades of the twentieth century when the modem appellate model of judicial review emerged; the actual practice of ad ministrative law during the New Deal, both within agencies and in the courts; and the historiographical dispute as to whether the APA intended to codify existing practices, or shift them in a more conservative direc tion
“It’s Like I’ve Got This Music in My Mind”: Protecting Human Authorship in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence
No full textThe music industry stands on the brink of a crisis. With unpredictable judicial standards that are inconsistent across the country, plaintiffs seeking to protect their musical works against copyright infringement face a heavy burden of proof, especially when facing defendants who are more wellknown and more well-funded. Not only that, but plaintiffs may not receive their day in court given that powerhouse artists like Taylor Swift, Sam Smith, and Bruno Mars have chosen to settle rather than defend their musical works in court. Now, Generative Artificial Intelligence (“Generative A.I.”) and A.I.-generated music will inevitably send the music industry into a tailspin—and the law is not ready to grapple with the complexities that will arise. To wit, Generative A.I. is poised to threaten the very principles on which copyright law is founded: To encourage (human) creativity by protecting original works of expression. This Note seeks to protect human music copyright holders against the ever-growing threat of A.I.-generated music. Part I addresses A.I. technology and the legal uncertainties associated with A.I.-generated music. Part II discusses the current doctrine of music copyright infringement. Part III offers a series of proposals for how to adapt the current doctrine to ensure music copyright holders can protect their original works of human authorship against A.I.-generated works