Touro College: Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center
Not a member yet
3484 research outputs found
Sort by
Franchising Law in the United States Between Theory and Practice: Heads Up for Foreign Investors
Full text linkAs a dynamic vehicle for fostering investment opportunities, both domestically and internationally, franchising spans a diverse array of industrial sectors, encompassing both goods and services. The United States plays a highly influential role in global franchise industry promotion, with a vast majority of International Franchise Association members representing American companies. Present data underscores that franchising has extended its reach to virtually every sector of the American economy. Notably, the United States stands among just four common law nations that have established dedicated franchise legislation, operating at both state and federal levels. This framework includes provisions for pre-sale disclosure, registration of franchise offerings, and the regulation of contractual relationships between the parties involved. Gaining a firm grasp of the pertinent federal, state, and case law surrounding franchising, especially for foreign investors, contributes significantly to establishing credibility and garnering respect. With the aim of offering a thorough insight into the fundamentals of franchising from a legal standpoint in the U.S.A., this article delves into several key aspects. These include the components of a franchise as defined by both federal and state laws, the extent of these law’s applicability, the incentives and support mechanisms designed to encourage foreign investment in the franchising sector, and the regulatory framework governing franchise relationships. While adhering to the framework presented above for introducing and analyzing franchising in the U.S., specific observations come to light
The Bar Exam in a Nutshell
No full textThe Bar Exam in a Nutshell walks you through the entire bar preparation process from getting a head start during law school to taking the exam. It features comprehensive coverage of the Uniform Bar Exam, including an explanation of each component and how to prepare for it. This edition also provides guidelines for selecting a bar review course, bar planner checklists, advice on how to manage the material you cover in bar review courses, and advice on how to learn the law so you can remember it and use it to answer exam questions. It identifies the basic skills that the bar exam tests and the precise manner in which they are tested, showing you how to target your study efforts to maximize results. Importantly, it includes structured study schedules so you can plan your time by the day, the hour, and the task for each week throughout the bar prep period. An Appendix provides sample MPT and MEE materials including guidance in outlining whether writing or typing your answer.The 4th Edition includes the following: A description of the bar exam landscape since COVID, including an introduction to the “NextGen” Bar Exam. Integration of technology into the bar exam such as taking the MPRE online at Pearson VUE testing centers and using ExamSoft to write the written portion of your bar exam. Using your laptop most effectively for the written portions of the bar exam. A “sequence and study” method for MEEs/essays. Outlining steps for answering the MEEs/essays and MPTs/Performance Tests to save time and maximize points
The Danger of Silence: The Negative Effect of Supreme Court Hesitance to Establish a Bright-Line Rule for Determining Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Full text linkAmbiguity surrounding the interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the ultimate application of the Alice/Mayo standard for determining patent subject matter eligibility has long plagued the courts, practitioners, and USPTO examiners alike. Maintaining a standard that leads to sheer confusion and, as a result, inconsistent rulings severely muddles the ultimate goal of patent law, to promote innovation. The Supreme Court has been presented with ample opportunities to address these issues, with the Solicitor General consistently recommending that it hear cases that deal with patent-eligibility debates. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court\u27s continued hesitancy to grant certiorari on these cases only further complicates an already complicated standard. Without judicial guidance and congressional intervention, this ambiguous standard will continue to stifle innovation and discourage innovative minds from seeking protection for their inventions. Accordingly, a detailed and proactive amendment to the standard is not only desired but gravely required
Felix Frankfurter, Collector of People
Full text linkFelix Frankfurter engaged, intensely, with people—they were the treasures that he hunted down, evaluated, and collected. This essay, written on the great occasion of Brad Snyder’s Frankfurter biography, considers some of Frankfurter’s most treasured people. One group is people who made Frankfurter, including Frankfurter himself, Henry L. Stimson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Another group is Justice Frankfurter’s three great U.S. Supreme Court colleagues: Justices Hugo L. Black, Robert H. Jackson, and William O. Douglas. A third group is biographers who Frankfurter admired and pushed: Harlan Buddington Phillips, Mark DeWolfe Howe, Jr., McGeorge Bundy, Alexander Bickel, Andrew L. Kaufman, and Philip B. Kurland. Brad Snyder has, by himself collecting Frankfurter and portraying him so fully and so well, brought his people-collecting into focus. I hope that Snyder’s biography stimulates others to study. Frankfurter, to recover his stolen papers, to write more about him, to publish more of his writings, and to live people-filled lives like his
The Law Professor as Public Intellectual: Felix Frankfurter and the Public and Its Government
Full text linkProfessor R.B. Bernstein was a legal historian with a J.D. from Harvard Law School who taught at the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership at City College of New York and New York Law School. He presented the paper below on Professor Felix Frankfurter’s The Public and Its Government, published in 1930. A little more than two months after the conference, sadly, Professor Bernstein passed. His brother Steven Bernstein provided the Touro Law Review with the draft of the paper that Professor Bernstein was preparing to submit for publication. We have added footnotes and made only minor revisions. It is our honor and privilege to publish Professor Bernstein’s paper
Mediating Pluralism: Felix Frankfurter’s Commitment to Majoritarian Democracy
Full text linkThis Article explores parallels between Frankfurter’s faith in democracy, that is, his trust in the legislative and executive branches as reflected in his jurisprudence of judicial restraint, and Frankfurter’s vision for Jewish (and other) immigrants’ integration into the American polity, namely his conviction that immigrants should shed vestiges of their birth cultures and assimilate into their adopted culture. The Article argues that Frankfurter’s commitment to judicial restraint was his means of mediating the pluralist dilemma, that is, the need to accommodate within the law diverse cultures and values; just as Felix Frankfurter, the first-generation Jewish American, wanted to sidestep ethnic particularism, Justice Frankfurter sought to shield the Court from having to balance the competing values, identities, and viewpoints that characterized modern American society. Evading the difficult task of choosing between competing interests and values, Frankfurter’s decisions often became an apology for the status quo, that is, the social position of the insider and the political position of the majority. As the Article further suggests, in the 1950s and 1960s, Frankfurter’s students and clerks reinvigorated his vision into an ideal of procedural democracy. Frankfurter can thus be described as linking early-twentieth century Progressivism with the postwar ideal of procedural democracy; in different reiterations this model of democracy has come to dominate American legal theory in the second part of the twentieth century. At the same time, Frankfurter’s vision may also be described as giving rise to a particular strand of Jewish legal thought. Historians often emphasize Jewish-American jurists’ celebration of pluralism and their role in the midcentury fight for civil rights and liberties. In these narratives, Frankfurter’s judicial record is deemed an anomaly. But, as this Article concludes, advocates of procedural democracy were often first- and second-generation Jewish Americans who were both committed to the protection of civil rights and liberties and concerned about calling attention to ethnic differences. I hope this Article encourages further explorations of the relationship among the ideal of procedural democracy, Progressivism, and Jewish-American history
Do Americans Support More Housing?
Full text linkAn analysis of opinion poll data on housing issues. The article finds that Americans generally believe that their community needs more housing of all types, but are more closely divided about whether such housing should be in their own neighborhoods. The article further finds that members of minority groups, lower-income Americans, and younger Americans are more pro-housing than older, affluent whites
Green Amendments Land Use and Transportation: What Could Go Wrong?
Full text linkNumerous states have amended their constitutions to include a green amendment (that is, an amendment providing that the state\u27s citizens have a right to a healthy environment). Unfortunately, the vagueness of these amendments leaves an enormous amount of interpretative power to courts. This article examines how some courts have interpreted green amendments and how these interpretations risk the misuse of green amendments. Additionally, this article examines how such misuse may be avoided
