St. Mary's University, Texas
St. Mary's University, San Antonio: St. Mary's Law Digital RepositoryNot a member yet
1503 research outputs found
Sort by
Quarterly Newsletter for St. Mary's University CTL Winter 2012
No full textCenter for Terrorism Law to Host Special February Seminar, Uproar Over the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act: Much Ado About Nothing New, Recent CTL Publications, The United States Sends Aid to Combat Central Africa Terrorist Organization, CTL Wel
On the Border Patrol and Its Use of Illegal Roving Patrol Stops
No full textThe Border Patrol says it has a “three-tiered, defense-in-depth strategy” to secure the border between ports of entry involving “the use of line-watch operations on the border, roving patrol operations near the border, and traffic checkpoints on highways leading away from the border.” At the border. Near the border. Leading away from the border. As it does here, the eponymous agency generally defends its sphere of activities as involving or being in relation to the actual border. The problem is that the Border Patrol is actually engaged in roving patrol operations at a greater distance from the border than its own regulations appear to contemplate. More to the point, its modus operandi often appears to be to conduct these operations in a manner that clearly violates not only its own operating regulations but also applicable statutory law and constitutional limitations. The predictable result is a degraded agency, racial profiling, and unlawful seizures of the undocumented, of non-citizens with legal status, and of U.S. citizens. The principle underlying reason for this abuse of power (beyond our imperfect human nature) is uncomplicated—the Border Patrol is insufficiently restrained. There are neither adequate internal nor sufficient external restraints on the exercise of its powers. It has been left to self-regulate and this experiment has been a failure, but a failure that largely goes unnoticed because of the legal and factual context in which the Border Patrol operates
10-0781 U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. WALDRIP
No full text10-0781 U-Haul International Inc., et al. v. Talmadge Waldrip, et al. from Dallas County and the Fifth District Court of Appeals, Dallas For petitioners: David E. Keltner, Fort Worth, and Thomas S. Leatherbury, Dallas For respondents/cross-petitioners: T
Moot Points Notes from the Sarita Kenedy East Law Library Issue 17 May and June 2012
No full textDirector's Message: New hire for Electronic Services Librarian, New Legal Fiction Section in the Library, Recent Faculty Publications, Library Renewals & Fines Policy, New Fiction Book Review, Our Library By the Numbers, Memories from the Southwestern A
10-1028 PNS STORES, INC. v. RIVERA
No full text10-1028 PNS Stores Inc. v. Anna E. Rivera from Bexar County and the Fourth District Court of Appeals, San Antonio For petitioner: David A. Oliver Jr., Houston For respondent: Daniel J. T. Sciano, San Antonio, and Kimberly S. Keller, Boerne Three principa
Restitution in Texas: Civil Liability for Unjust Enrichment
No full textThe Texas Supreme Court appears to have adopted the modem view of restitution, but its rulings lack the detailed guidance needed by lower courts. This Article therefore concludes with suggestions that the Texas Supreme Court should establish an independent and generally applicable cause of action for unjust enrichment, describe clearly the elements of that cause of action, and lend its authority to the modem terms that describe the law of restitution. None of these suggestions requires a radical departure by the Texas Supreme Court from what it has already established in restitution cases