LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
Swiping Rights: Hidden Costs of Hidden Laws
No full textWhile many legal regimes have undergone fundamental shifts to account for the online economy, one lags behind: industry-specific mandatory contract rules. These rules, frequently buried in decades-old, nonintuitive statutes, are often overly prescriptive and come with draconian penalties, hampering the goals of entrepreneurship and impeding startup growth.
Much has been written about the intersection of regulation and entrepreneurship. But sparse attention has been paid to the unintended consequences on early-stage companies of more subtle regulatory interventions like contract rules — especially those with inconsistent or conflicting requirements among the states. This Article begins to fill that gap and uses as a case study a set of contract laws passed long ago to govern traditional matchmaking services, but now equally apply to Tinder and its brethren.
Just like many other legal regimes, contract laws for industries that have space-shifted from offline to online need a second, thoughtful look from policymakers. There are many possible solutions, but all share the same goal: harmonization and flexibility to support evolving industries while still providing benefits to consumers. Regardless, easing regulatory burdens that are ill-suited for the online economy would free up resources to invest in more substantive issues on which platforms should compete
Antitrust Fireside Chat
No full textPlease join our fireside chat featuring Deputy Assistant Attorney General Omeed Assefi, Professor Samuel Weinstein, and Kevin Hart, Partner at Jones Day. The discussion will focus on the latest developments in antitrust enforcement policy at the U.S. Department of Justice. A networking reception with refreshments will follow the main program.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2025/1036/thumbnail.jp
Will Chief Justice Roberts Strike Down Trump’s Tariffs, or Remain His Lapdog?
No full textChief Justice John Roberts is at a crossroads. Will he rule against President Trump in the tariffs case or be Trump’s loyal lackey? Trump insists that his self-imposed tariffs are lawful and that a court order invalidating them will be a disaster. Others, including lower federal court judges, 12 states’ governments, and some small businesses, insist that Trump’s tariffs are outright illegal because they are without statutory authorization
Shining Light on Policy: The Case for Solar Panel Mandates on New Construction Projects
No full textThe note argues that solar panel mandates on new construction projects are a necessary and sensible approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and achieving climate goals, but their implementation must include provisions to protect vulnerable communities and address environmental justice concerns. While such mandates face legal and political challenges, the benefits of decreased emissions and energy independence outweigh the costs, particularly when paired with measures like community solar systems, incentives, and exemptions
From Proposal to Practice: Unpacking the Failed New Jersey Joint Custody Bills and Their Implications for Domestic Violence Victims
No full textThe note critically examines the failed 2018 New Jersey bills proposing a presumption of joint legal and physical custody in child custody matters, arguing that such measures may inadvertently harm victims of domestic violence by shifting the burden of proof onto them and failing to account for the complexities of abuse. It advocates for a more nuanced legal framework that balances shared parenting with the safety and well-being of domestic violence victims and their children
Turning Over the Ballot: Direct Democracy and State-Level Change
Full text linkhttps://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2024-2025/1048/thumbnail.jp
Dean Melanie Leslie’s Office
Full text linkJoin Dean Leslie and Professor Michael Herz to discuss presidential executive orders. On Inauguration Day, President Trump revoked 78 existing executive orders in one fell swoop and started signing new ones at a frenetic pace. There has never been quite such an attention-getting spree of these directives. Executive orders are not new; every President since George Washington has issued them. But they are often misunderstood. Professor Herz will discuss the history, nature, and effect of executive orders. The two will also answer questions raised by student attendees.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2025/1002/thumbnail.jp
P*LAW 2025: Mentor Mocks - A Joint Production of SBA and OCS
Full text linkMentor Mocks, presented by SBA and OCS and sponsored by Katten, offered 1L students the chance to practice interview skills through mock interviews with upper-class students.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2024-2025/1061/thumbnail.jp
P*LAW 2025
Full text linkThis document outlines the full schedule for Cardozo Law School’s 2025 P*LAW Week, hosted by the Center for Public Service Law. Held from January 27 to January 30, the week featured a variety of panels, workshops, and student-led presentations on topics such as reproductive justice, housing, LGBTQ+ immigration, international human rights, labor law, and social justice. Events included guest speakers from leading advocacy organizations, mock interviews, and internship prep sessions, all designed to engage students in public interest law and foster professional development.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2024-2025/1055/thumbnail.jp
The Problem of Biased Precedents
No full textThis Article addresses the problem ofbiased precedents, wherein sophisticated repeat players, often corporate and state entities armed with superior resources and a vested interest in shaping the law, manipulate legal proceedings to systematically establish self-advantageous precedents. Specifically, by strategically choosing to litigate cases they anticipate will lead to favorable precedents and settling those expected to produce unfavorable outcomes, these players systematically bias the law over time to their advantage, at the expense of one-shot parties and society at large. The problem of biased precedents challenges the commonly held view about the efficiency and fairness of the legal system and raises questions about the social benefits of settlements.
This Article introduces two innovative, implementable, market-based solutions inspired by the realm of insurance: judgment insurance ( JI ) and settlement insurance ( SI ). JI involves a third-party insurer, which could be an NGO, an interestgroup, or a state entity, that cares about the precedential value ofa certain case and is willing to pay for it and provides the plaintiff a premium-free coverage for the expected judgment that the plaintiff is likely to receive. SI operates similarly to JI, but insures an existing or future settlement offer rather than an expected court judgment.
Both mechanisms aim to incentivize one-shot litigators to refrain from settling their cases and instead pursue them to a conclusion with a precedential court decision. They help level the legal playing field between powerful corporate entities and weaker individuals, ensuring that precedents are established in an impartial manner. After introducing JI and SI and demonstrating their superiority over existing legal mechanisms that could, in theory, tackle the problem of biased precedents, this Article explores potential obstacles and strategic challenges associated with JI and SL It shows that both are doctrinally feasible and have the potential to restore justice to the legal system