bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
Judicial Ethics
No full textThursday, October 3, 2024 | 12:30 PM | Eck Hall of Law, Room 1140
Join the Notre Dame Law School chapter of the American Constitution Society in a moderated discussion and Q&A with North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls. Justice Earls will discuss the importance of promoting diversity in courtrooms and the proper role of judicial codes of conduct. Justice Earls has had a long and illustrious career as a civil rights attorney before being elected to the North Carolina Supreme Court in 2018.
Sponsor: American Constitution Societyhttps://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_posters/1907/thumbnail.jp
Hull Unique Equities LLC v. Boone
No full textThe landlord, Hull Unique Equities LLC, initiated a holdover proceeding against the tenant, Tyiesha Boone, seeking to recover the premises located at 2350 Pacific Street, Apt 3, Brooklyn, NY 11233. The tenant responded by moving to dismiss the case on the grounds that the landlord had failed to comply with New York\u27s Limited Liability Company Law §206(a) by not publishing its articles of organization within 120 days of its formation. The court granted the tenant\u27s motion, dismissing the case without prejudice and finding that the landlord\u27s failure to comply with the LLC Law was a fatal defect that could not be cured
Big Apple Corp. v. Merin
No full textThe landlord initiated a nonpayment proceeding against the tenant seeking a money judgment of 3,324.82 in rent arrears and awarded judgment to the landlord for eviction once the arrears are paid according to the deadline. The court also ordered the landlord to correct outstanding HPD violations within specified timeframes. The court\u27s decision is noteworthy because it describes standards of evidence
245 E. 25th Realty Corp. v. Leone
No full textThe landlord sought a preliminary injunction to compel the tenant to allow access to the apartment for shower repairs. The tenant opposed the motion, arguing that the shower had been repaired multiple times and that the landlord had failed to demonstrate a clear right to mandatory injunctive relief. The court denied the landlord\u27s motion, finding that the landlord had not met its burden of proof and that the tenants were willing to cooperate with further repairs. The court ordered the parties to hire a plumber to inspect the shower and report back to the court
Matter of P & I Prop., LLC v. Commissioner, State of N.Y., Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal (DHCR)
No full textThe landlord sought review of an $8,000 DHCR penalty for failure to repair a rent-stabilized apartment as directed. Despite the landlord\u27s claim that the tenant refused access for repairs, the DHCR found the refusal not improper. The court ruled the penalty was neither disproportionate nor shocking, and it represented the minimum allowed under Rent Stabilization Code § 2526.2(c)(1). The landlord\u27s petition was denied, and the case dismissed
Unraveling the Web: Big Tech Directors, SPACs, and Antitrust Evasion Tactics
No full textIn recent years, Big Tech’s investment in startups has come under intense scrutiny, with concerns about market concentration and anticompetitive behavior. This Article explores how Big Tech companies, like Google, exploit Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) to evade antitrust laws and gain monopolistic control over startups. Through data analysis and theoretical insights, this Article uncovers conflicts of interest in SPAC transactions and highlights the disconnect between shareholder approval and company performance. Comparing SPAC mergers to traditional initial public offerings (IPOs) reveals regulatory loopholes that contribute to market concentration and collusion. We argue that the dynamic tech landscape requires regulatory action to maintain fair competition and innovation. By tackling SPAC-related complexities, regulators can curb Big Tech dominance and foster a level playing field for startups and competitors. Therefore, we recommend that regulators address interlocking directorates in SPACs. Proposed solutions include limiting directors’ multiple board memberships and enforcing stricter disclosure requirements
Dicta Mines, Pretext, and Excessive Force: Toward Criminal Procedure Futurism
No full textScholars have recently criticized Fourth Amendment pretext doctrine for leading to more police contact with Black and Brown people and thus to racially disproportionate uses of excessive force. This Essay reveals the intersection of the Court’s pretext and excessive force doctrines by unearthing their shared roots in the 1973 United States v. Robinson search-incident-to-arrest opinion.
This Essay’s new insight is that Robinson contains what it calls a “dicta mine.” A dicta mine is (1) an unnecessary statement that (2) a Court silently recharacterizes as having already resolved an issue, (3) exploding it into a significant doctrine. The Robinson dicta mine claims, without support, that “it is of no moment that [officer] Jenks did not indicate any subjective fear of the Respondent or that he did not himself suspect that the Respondent was armed.” Citing Robinson’s dicta mine, the 1978 Scott v. United States opinion takes Robinson’s aside and explodes it into a general principle that courts may not review officers’ subjective motivations. The 1989 Graham opinion then cites Scott, at the place where it cites Robinson’s dicta mine, for the proposition the anti-subjectivity principle is required in excessive force doctrine. Finally, the 1996 Whren opinion argues that Robinson and Scott had already “foreclose[d]” the possibility that the
Fourth Amendment could consider police racial bias to be unreasonable. This Essay’s principal contribution to criminal procedure literature is being the first publication to demonstrate how excessive force and pretext doctrines are illegitimate because they rest upon the shaky foundation of Robinson’s dicta mine.
This Essay’s second contribution is its proposal that we should respond to the criminal procedure redemption—the systematic undoing of civil liberties, especially for racial minorities, that began in the early 1970s—by adopting a criminal procedure futurism perspective. The goals of this approach are to delegitimate anti-egalitarian doctrines in the present and create doctrinal principles for a second criminal procedure revolution in the future. To prepare for the future, law professors should discontinue teaching Robinson as a stand-alone search incident to arrest case. Instead, we should connect it to the excessive force and pretext doctrines as part of showing students how to read opinions with a critical eye
From Alienation to Rootedness: Discrimination Against Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines through Education
No full textThis article tackles the existing discrimination against indigenous peoples in the Philippines in law, policy, and practices. This article discusses indigenous peoples in context, the international and domestic legal framework on IP rights, and the legal (and moral) right to education and the right to indigenous education
Punishment menus and their deterrent effects: an exploratory analysis
No full textConventional wisdom suggests that allowing offenders to choose alternative punishments to a previously existing punishment cannot enhance deterrence, because offenders can simply select the least costly option available. After reviewing the deterrence research literature, we argue that punishment menus may encourage individuals to focus more on how they construe the wrongdoing and view the ethical gravity of their actions. We experimentally test whether people may perceive punishment menus as more deterrent than stand-alone sanctions available within the same menu. Our results suggest that this is possible, and that changes in people’s perceptions are often mediated by the mindset (e.g., calculative, ethical) they adopt to evaluate punishment schemes as well as their impressions of the seriousness of the illegal act