bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
Navigating Through the Influencer Era
No full textDanielle Garno is a Fashion, Beauty, & Luxury Goods Attorney and Partner at Holland & Knight in Miami, Florida. Danielle focuses primarily on issues faced by the fashion industry, including but not limited to intellectual property, advertising, marketing, social media, and influencers. Throughout Danielle’s career, she has collaborated with and represented fashion brands of all sizes from start-ups to multi-national and even global brands. Danielle helps these brands navigate through arising legal issues and counsels brands on expanding and sustaining a successful public image. In this Commentary, Danielle provides advice based on her experience with how to carefully proceed through the new influencer era
Permitting the Future
No full textToday’s environmental laws impose a range of permitting and review requirements on federal projects and private developments that require federal approval. While well-intentioned, these requirements have imposed substantial costs and delays on economic development, including the development of “green infrastructure.” Alternative energy projects and the infrastructure upon which they depend are constrained by lengthy permit reviews and assessments. While designed to protect the environment, these regimes may constrain the development and deployment of the environmental technologies of tomorrow, including (but not limited to) those necessary to address climate change. This essay is the introduction to a symposium on “Permitting the Future” that explores the legal and economic aspects of permitting and review requirements for new technologies, infrastructure, and development, how such requirements may impede environmental progress, and whether there are alternative approaches to managing environmental risks that are more consistent with the maintenance of a free, dynamic, and sustainable economy
Machines Make Mistakes Too: Planning for AI Liability in Contracting
No full textRecent advances in artificial intelligence have set off a frenzy of commercial activity, with companies fearful that they may fall behind if they are unable to quickly incorporate the new technology into their products or their internal processes. At the same time, numerous scholars from the machine learning community have warned of the fundamental risks that uninhibited use of artificial intelligence poses to society. The question is not whether artificial intelligence will cause harm, but when, and how. The certainty of future harm necessitates that legal scholars and practitioners examine the liability implications of artificial intelligence. While this topic has been given increasing focus in the literature, such discussion is lacking in two key ways. First, there has been little attempt to consolidate the literature on the range of legal theories that might apply to harm resulting from the use of artificial intelligence. Second, the literature has failed to address the role that contracting may play in reducing uncertainty around liability and overriding common law approaches. This paper addresses both gaps in the literature and provides legal practitioners with an overview of key considerations related to liability allocation when contracting for artificial intelligence technology. Part I of the paper begins by briefly discussing the risks inherent in the use of artificial intelligence, including in particular risks resulting from a lack of transparency and explainability, and the harms that might result. Part II of the paper distills past legal scholarship on the legal theories that might apply when harm results from the use of artificial intelligence. The theories analyzed include vicarious liability, products liability and negligence. Relevant distinctions between artificial intelligence and software are discussed as they relate to the application of products liability and negligence theories in particular. Part II closes by highlighting that the current uncertainty in the legal landscape for artificial intelligence liability incentivizes contracting parties to address liability directly within their contracts. Part III of the paper then proceeds to provide an overview of important considerations for contracting parties when using contractual apportionment of liability to reduce uncertainty around harm resulting from the use of artificial intelligence. These considerations are organized by contracting phase and by relevant contracting section
Banana Kelly Prospect HDFC. v. Banks
No full textIn this case, Banana Kelly Prospect HDFC initiated a non-payment summary proceeding against tenant Banks, which was settled by stipulation requiring repairs prior to rent payment. Dispute arose when Banks alleged non-compliance with repair terms, prompting a motion for contempt by Banks. The court ruled on proper service and the requirement of clear and unequivocal orders for contempt, ultimately denying Banks\u27 motion due to the order\u27s ambiguity and lack of clear mandate on repair deadlines, affirming that willfulness is not a prerequisite for civil contempt under New York law
517-525 W. 45 LLC v. New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev.
No full textThe Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff\u27s complaint under the doctrine of res judicata, citing a prior dismissal of a CPLR article 78 petition seeking the same relief regarding issuance of a cure completion certificate by HPD. The court found plaintiff had already litigated the issue of HPD\u27s discretion under the cure agreement in the prior proceeding, barring re-litigation. Additionally, the court rejected plaintiff\u27s claims of impossibility and failure to exhaust administrative remedies, affirming that these arguments did not undermine the res judicata effect of the earlier judgment
Victoria v. Victoria
No full textThe court addressed a licensee holdover proceeding where the administrator of a cooperative apartment sought to evict occupants after the shareholder\u27s death. The respondent, claiming partial ownership and residency, argued against the proceeding\u27s jurisdiction in housing court. The court denied dismissal, citing that cooperative shares do not grant possession rights absent a proprietary lease transfer. Summary judgment for possession was denied due to insufficient evidence, with trial needed to determine the respondent\u27s status as a licensee or otherwise
Realizing the Right to Food in Maine: Insights from International Law
No full textIn November 2021, Maine made history as the first U.S. state to constitutionally recognize the right to food. Maine’s right to food amendment—which sought to address widespread food insecurity and corporate control of the food supply—proclaims food as a “natural, inherent and unalienable right,” and empowers Mainers to grow and consume food of their own choosing, affirming their right to food sovereignty. This Article makes three key contributions to scholarly examinations of this historic amendment. First, it situates the amendment within the broader landscape of domestic and global struggles for the right to food and food sovereignty. Second, the Article considers how the right to food framework under international human rights law can help define the normative content of Maine’s newly affirmed constitutional right, and the state’s corresponding obligations to uphold that right. Third, the Article proposes legislative and policy reforms to help realize the right to food in Maine, while also considering potential challenges. The Article concludes that despite these challenges, the right to food amendment carries the potential to ensure lasting food security in Maine, while shifting the balance of power in the food system
