bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
How Summary Eviction Proceedings Fail Individuals Facing Housing Discrimination
No full textEvery year, over three million American households are threatened with eviction from their homes. The consequences of eviction are “dire” and affect “every facet of life” that go beyond someone’s physical safety and livelihood. For instance, evictions may leave people unhoused, “[fracture] the integrity of their families, [crush] their livelihoods, [damage] their mental and physical health and their safety, [deprive] them of their place in community and, ultimately, [tear] apart the fabric of their communities.” While Americans of all backgrounds face evictions, there are often large racial, ethnic, and gender disparities among those who face eviction with Black Americans, women, and those with children being the most vulnerable. Specifically, “[n]early a quarter of Black tenants live in a county where the eviction rate for Black tenants is double the rate for white tenants.” Additionally, Black women with children were threatened with eviction at a rate of 28% while those without children faced a rate of 16%.
This post was originally published on the Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights and Social Justice website on February 2, 2024. The original post can be accessed via the Archived Link button above
False Promises of Protection: Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales and The Supreme Court’s Failure to Protect Human Rights
No full textState of the Law School Address
No full textTuesday, February 20, 2024 | 12:30–1:45 PM | Eck Hall of Law, McCartan Courtroom
The SBA Community & Inclusion Committee invites you to attend the State of the Law School Address followed by discussion. The goal of the discussion is to have the law school community\u27s questions addressed by the administration and faculty on topics including academia, community, and the future of NDLS.
Co-sponsors: Student Bar Association Inclusion Committee
Panelists for the Town Hall discussion include Dean Cole, Christine Holst-Haley, Director of Student Services, Joshua Mannery, SBA President, and Professor Randy Kozel, Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Academic Affairs.
The discussion will be moderated by Max Gaston, Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and it will be guided and informed by your questions!
Dean Cole will begin the event by sharing updates about the law school. Following the address, the panelists will respond to questions submitted in advance.https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_posters/1802/thumbnail.jp
The Sweep and Force of Section Three
No full textSection Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This Article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election
The Administrative Law Process
No full textReference librarian Frederick W. Dingledy describes the process federal administrative agencies use when creating regulations.
Please note: the video is best viewed at 720p. This setting can be adjusted by clicking the HD icon at the bottom of the video screen
A State for Second Chances: Utah’s Clean Slate Legislation
No full textUtah’s Clean Slate Act and the wave of similar legislation across the country provide a much-needed change to the traditional method of expungements that left many still facing heavy collateral consequences. Utah’s first pass at this legislation struck a good balance, evidenced by bipartisan support. It does not eliminate responsibility for one’s actions, but “[t]hose who violate the law and then pay their debt to society should not be punished indefinitely for the rest of their lives.” This reflects the broader “vision of America, then and now . . . a land of second chances, where one could make a new life through hard work and service to others, where redemption was a possibility.” The Clean Slate Act in Utah will provide numerous benefits, including increased efficiency for the courts, more employees for business, economic prosperity for the state, and, most importantly, reduced collateral consequences for individuals with criminal records and their families. However, Utah should continue to improve its Clean Slate legislation by allowing for more crimes to be expunged, decreasing the waiting period, notifying eligible individuals, and continuing to pass policy that ensures more people have a fair chance at redemption
The New Undue Influence
No full textThe doctrine of undue influence has long been the problem child of inheritance law. Undue influence, a hazy combination of fraud and duress, supposedly invalidates bequests that a beneficiary obtained by overriding the volition of a vulnerable testator or settlor. But because relationships are complex, concepts like free will are slippery, and challenges to do native transfers are litigated after the owner dies, courts struggle to apply the rule. Making matters worse, fact finders exploit the principle’s vagueness to protect a decedent’s family at the expense of non-traditional relationships. As a result, scholars have criticized undue influence fordecades, with some even calling for its abolition.
Yet this Article examines a little-noticed trend that is cutting in the opposite direction. Responding to the epidemic of elder abuse, several jurisdictions have started to experiment with a supercharged version ofthe undue influence doctrine. These states have realized that because the cost of pursuing undue influence allegations often dwarfs the contestant’ spotential recovery, the traditional rule does not do enough to deterpernicious misconduct. Thus, as Congress often creates bounties to encourage plaintiffs to enforce statutes, these lawmakers have incentivized“ probate attorneys general” to file undue influence claims. They have done so by recognizing novel presumptions of undue influence, a civilclaim for undue influence as a form of elder abuse, and enhanced remediesfor undue influence committed in bad faith. We call these updates of theancient rule the “new undue influence.”
The Article then offers a ground-level assessment of this phenomenonby analyzing a dataset of nearly 7,000 recent probate and trust cases from California, which has been a pioneer in the new undue influence movement. The Article reaches three main conclusions. First, policymakers have successfully changed the economics of undue influence litigation. Indeed, the Article finds that heirs and beneficiaries who invokethe new undue influence achieve a higher “success rate”—the amount of damages or settlement proceeds divided by the maximum possible recovery—than those who only seek relief under traditional law. Second,contrary to scholars’ assumptions, judges and juries no longer seem to manipulate the undue influence doctrine to protect a decedent’s family. Infact, there appears to be no meaningful link between case results and theparties’ relationship to the testator or settlor. Third, permitting contestants to repackage probate cases as civil claims for elder abuse creates anomalies. Challengers often file probate petitions and civil complaints, opening the door for duplicative litigation, doctrinal inconsistency, and procedural gamesmanship. The Article therefore suggests ways for courts and policymakers to harness the benefits of the new undue influence while minimizing these cost
Abbott v. City of Henderson, 123 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (Jan. 25, 2024)
No full textThe Nevada Supreme Court was asked to decide whether: (1) the district court properly concluded that Vivaldi Park is covered by Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 41.510; (2) Abbott’s activities qualified as recreational activities; and (3) that Henderson did not intentionally create a hazard constituting willful conduct.
Under NRS 41.510, there are no land-type limitations on the properties protected from liability, and playground activities qualify as recreational activity under the statute. Furthermore, landowners can only be held liable for injuries caused on the landowner’s property if the landowner acted willfully and maliciously by not alerting the recreational user of a hazard on the property
Interpreting Ethics Rules
No full textThis Article explores the interpretation of ethics rules through the prism of two rules that have been the subject of ongoing controversy and contention: Rule 4.2, the “no-contact” rule, which prohibits a lawyer from communicating with a represented client absent the consent of that client’s lawyer, and Rule 8.4(g), which prohibits various forms of discrimination and harassment. Each of these rules provides a model for a wider examination of different interpretive approaches to ethics rules, grounded in different attitudes toward the features and functions of ethics codes. Specifically, the debate revolving around Rule 4.2 illustrates competing approaches to interpreting a rule that appears clearly articulated but, if applied as stated, would defy the similarly clear purpose of the rule, while Rule 8.4(g) has elicited sharply contrasting approaches to the interpretation and application of broadly articulated ethics rules. The Article concludes that, while divisions over the interpretation of ethics rules may not prove inherently problematic, the relative lack of attention to the examination of interpretive approaches to ethics rules remains striking, particularly in light of the central role of the rules both in the regulation of lawyers and as expressions of the ethical norms of the legal profession. Thus, without expecting or proposing uniformity, the Article represents an effort to promote further discussion and consideration of interpretive attitudes and approaches to ethics codes and ethics rules, encompassing issues of vital importance to the legal community