bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
Are Embryos or Fetuses Brain Dead? Implications for the Abortion Debate
No full textMost state abortion definitions exclude the removal of a dead fetus, attempting to distinguish miscarriage and abortion care. But what does “dead” mean at the earliest stages of potential life? There is a consensus at the end of life that death not only encompasses the cessation of cardiac activity, but also brain death. This symposium essay considers whether life can exist before brain life begins and how that might impact the abortion debate. The most rudimentary brain waves cannot be detected in an embryo before roughly the eighth week of pregnancy; the capacity for feeling and consciousness begin much later. If brain life starts at one of these points, one could argue that before that moment, terminating a pregnancy simply removes dead pregnancy tissue and is not an abortion according to state abortion definitions. This essay considers important critiques of this argument as a legal theory, including that the legal definition of brain death requires “irreversibility,” that this strategy could exacerbate fetal personhood efforts, and that this fundamentally philosophical question cannot be resolved by science, particularly in a moment of scientific distrust. The essay concludes that though the concept of brain life has some moral and rhetorical salience, it should not be pursued as a legal strategy
A Theory of Corporate Fiduciary Duties
No full textCorporate law lacks a general theory of a board’s power as fiduciary, and consequently, the law governing corporate fiduciary duties is notably unstable. This Article offers a novel theory that grounds corporate fiduciary duties in stronger microeconomic and legal foundations. The theory, coined the Judicial Monitoring Model (JMM), shows that even imperfect judicial monitoring makes shareholders and boards better off, even when there is no claim of a breach of the duties of loyalty or care as currently understood. The JMM synthesizes the law governing corporate fiduciary duties and other doctrines that protect principals, beneficiaries, and creditors from the risk of agent misconduct due to moral hazard. And it explains why courts evaluate corporate fiduciary conduct in some situations and defer to the board’s business judgment in others.
The JMM also generates surprising empirical predictions. It predicts that, in some cases, courts can and do provide substantive review of corporate transactions even if boards are informed, disinterested, and appear to be acting in good faith. The Article finds evidence of such review in old and recent cases, including a startling number of overlooked cases involving corporate waste
S.B. 98 and the Outer Limits of Journalism
No full textSenate Bill 98 (S.B. 98), signed into law on October 9, 2021, aims to safeguard the right of journalists in California to cover public protests without police interference. However, the bill is silent as to who qualifies as a journalist and thus falls under its protections. This Note analyzes different approaches to defining the press in the legal, academic, and journalistic fields. In the context of S.B. 98, it advocates for a broad, process-based definition that encompasses a wide range of newsgatherers, from established professionals writing for major publications, to individuals documenting the events unfolding in their communities with nothing more than a phone and a social media platform
Why We Should Stop Talking About Violent Offenders: Storytelling and Decarceration
No full textThe movement to decarcerate risks foundering because of its failure to grapple with so-called violent offenders, who make up nearly half of U.S. prisoners. The treatment of people serving sentences for offenses categorized as violent is a primary reason for the continued problem of mass incarceration, despite widespread awareness of the phenomenon and significant bipartisan interest in its reduction. People convicted of “violent offenses” are serving historically anomalous and excessively long sentences, are generally denied clemency and compassionate release, and are excluded from a wide array of legal reform and policy changes with decarceral aims. Keeping these people in prison for life or near-life sentences is extraordinarily expensive for state budgets, largely unnecessary from a public safety perspective, and cruel and unusual punishment from the viewpoint of international and historical standards. While the moral imperative to release those serving draconian sentences for nonviolent drug offenses is widely if not universally accepted, such efforts will ultimately be a drop in the bucket if we fail to address the 58% of state prisoners who are serving sentences for offenses categorized as violent.
Quantitative data about the low rates of recidivism for people released after serving long sentences for “violent offenses” will not alone shift the focus of our policies or politics. Rather, we need to develop a more nuanced understanding of “violent offenses” and “violent offenders” by hearing the voices of people who have been directly impacted by violence and by the system’s response to violence. These are, in many cases, the same people. Their stories are complex and human, defying simplistic narratives about innocent victims and bad offenders. Storytelling offers possibilities for reconceptualizing the stale terminology around violence and for shifting the discourse.
This Article draws on insights from the literature on epistemic injustice and criminal law democratization, together with the legal storytelling literature. It explores the power of storytelling as an advocacy tool in the slow work of person-by-person decarceration during back-end processes like clemency, parole, and compassionate release, as well as part of the broader movement for systemic decarceration. Storytelling is an important tool for advocates working within the system, as well as for abolitionists seeking to end the system. In some contexts, advocates and activists are best situated to tell these stories, but ultimately people should be given the opportunity and tools to tell their own stories
Newport Gardens Apartment, L.P. v. Surles
No full textThe landlord commenced a nonpayment proceeding against the tenant, alleging rent arrears. The tenant moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the predicate rent demand was defective for failing to clearly specify the alleged arrears period and including non-itemized, non-rent charges. The court agreed that the rent demand did not comply with statutory requirements and was too confusing to inform the tenant of the actual amount owed. As a result, the court granted the tenant\u27s motion and dismissed the nonpayment petition without prejudice to the landlord re-filing with a proper rent demand. The court also ordered the landlord to correct certain housing code violations at the premises
2 NO. 6th PL. Property Owner LLC v. Golriz
No full textIn a non-payment proceeding, the court ruled that the landlord\u27s offer of a renewal lease during a holdover proceeding did not create a new tenancy but settled pending litigation. The court distinguished relevant laws and held that the landlord was obligated to offer a renewal lease, and by offering it during litigation, did not voluntarily create a new tenancy. Respondent\u27s argument that a new tenancy was created was denied
Pitt Law Faculty 1990-91
No full textPhotograph of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law Faculty for the 1990-91 academic year.https://scholarship.law.pitt.edu/pitt-law-faculty-photographs-group/1008/thumbnail.jp
Pitt Law Faculty 1930s
No full textBlack and white photograph of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law Faculty in the mid-1930s.https://scholarship.law.pitt.edu/pitt-law-faculty-photographs-group/1001/thumbnail.jp