Alabama Law Scholarly Commons - The University of Alabama
Not a member yet
1539 research outputs found
Sort by
Commentary: The Best Time of Your Life: Reflections on the Myth of Moral Progress and the Continuing Evolution of Civil Rights Law
No full textCivil Rights in the American Story charts the ambiguous and contested meanings of civil rights in law and culture and confronts a variety of important questions about race in contemporary America. How important is civil rights in America\u27s story of possibility and change? How has it transformed the very meaning of citizenship and identity in American culture? Why does the subject of race continue to haunt the American imagination and continue to play such a large role in political and legal debates? Do affirmative action and multiculturalism promise a way out of racial polarization, or do they sharpen and deepen it? Are there new and better ways to frame our commitment to equal justice? This book brings together the work of five distinguished scholars to critically assess the place of civil rights in the American story. It offers different ways of talking about civil rights and different frames through which we can address issues of civil rights in the future.https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/fac_bookchapter/1034/thumbnail.jp
The legal meaning and implications of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty
No full textNuclear Weapons under International Law is a comprehensive treatment of nuclear weapons under key international law regimes. It critically reviews international law governing nuclear weapons with regard to the inter-state use of force, international humanitarian law, human rights law, disarmament law, and environmental law, and discusses where relevant the International Court of Justice\u27s 1996 Advisory Opinion. Unique in its approach, it draws upon contributions from expert legal scholars and international law practitioners who have worked with conventional and non-conventional arms control and disarmament issues. As a result, this book embraces academic consideration of legal questions within the context of broader political debates about the status of nuclear weapons under international law.https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/fac_bookchapter/1021/thumbnail.jp
Contract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance
Get PDFHow is a right to specific performance of a contract used by parties Despite longstanding scholarly interest in the topic this question has been largely left unexplored This Article presents a qualitative study of parties and attorneys involved in specific performance litigation It investigates how parties choose between remedies whether they negotiate after judgment for specific performance if specific performance is implemented and the difficulties involved in its implementationbrbrThe findings reveal important theoretical oversights and challenges to prevailing law In practice many plaintiffs opt out of specific performance This is puzzling as expectation damages are notoriously under compensatory relative to performance A primary explanation is that it is harder to execute specific relief than a money judgment Focusing attention on execution provides a valuable lesson in exactly these circumstances where US law grants specific performance ” unique goods ” it is least valuable due to a lack of clear standards by which to evaluate performance Another explanation is lawyer\u27s bias attorneys will often advise clients to sue money damages to ensure easy collection of their own feesbrbrAnother set of findings reveal that parties think about specific performance in ways that are inconsistent with both economic and rightsbased theories Sometimes plaintiffs will not negotiate a judgment as they will be reluctant to commodify it in contrast to economic theories and other times they will treat specific performance instrumentally to achieve other ends but performance of the contractual promise which is in tension with rightsbased theories The Article concludes by discussing the theoretical and policy implications of these findings and highlights the ways in which qualitative research could enrich challenge and contextualize contract theor
Patent Scope and Enablement in Rapidly Developing Arts
Get PDFThe claims of a patent and its enabling disclosure must be commensurate in scope However because of the openended nature of most patent claims in fields of rapidlydeveloping technology it is almost inevitable that before the patent has expired the claims will read on embodiments that the specification does not teach The current law on scope enablement is the source of much confusion Because enablement must be judged from a filingdate perspective some cases dismiss later advancements eg a newlydiscovered species within a claimed genus as irrelevant Other cases in contrast hold patent claims invalid because they exceed the scope of what could be achieved when the application was filed A clear and balanced rule of scope enablement is essential to a patent system designed to promote the Progress ofUseful Arts Claims that exceed the scope of the patent\u27s teachings can stand in the way of technological progress at the same time claims to important advancements “ the advancements most susceptible to elaboration and improvement “ should not be so severely limited in scope that they are all but worthless In this Article I propose an analytical framework designed to reconcile some of the apparent contradictions and to reward patentees in a manner that promotes technological advancement in rapidlydeveloping fields I propose that courts address patent claims that include nonenabled embodiments from the perspective of a reasonable applicant The claims should not be held invalid 1 if the nonenabled embodiments were unforeseeable 2 if the nonenabled embodiments are tangential ie the nonenabled aspects of those embodiments are unrelated to the patentee\u27s contribution to the art or 3 if for some other reason a reasonable applicant could not have been expected to draft claims that would have excluded the nonenabled embodiments The model for this threepart test is the Supreme Court\u27s rule on prosecution history estoppel as outlined in Festo Although enablement and prosecution history estoppel are very different areas of patent law in both cases respect for the limitations of a reasonable applicant leads to outcomes consistent with sound patent polic
O\u27Connor\u27s Canons: The Professional Responsibility Jurisprudence of Justice Sandra Day O\u27Connor
Get PDFAgainst Martdom: A Liberal Argument for Accomodation of Religion Symposium: Religious Liberty and the Free Society: Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Dignitatis Humanae
Get PDFWhen Can a State Sue the United States?
Get PDFState suits against the federal government are on the rise From Massachusetts\u27 challenge to federal environmental policy to Oregon\u27s confrontation over physicianassisted suicide to Texas\u27s suit over the Obama administration\u27s immigration program States increasingly go to court to express their disagreement with federal policy This Article offers a new theory of state standing that seeks to explain when a State may sue the United States I argue that States have broad standing to sue the federal government to protect state law Accordingly a State may challenge federal statutes or regulations that preempt or otherwise undermine the continued enforceability of state law But contrary to many scholars and jurists I contend that States do not have a special interest in overseeing the manner in which federal agencies implement federal law The Supreme Court was therefore wrong to suggest that States deserve special solicitude in the standing analysis when they seek to ensure that the federal executive abides by congressional mandates States have special standing to protect federalism principles not the constitutional separation of power
The enemy inside: a Paul Madriani novel
No full textDefending an innocent young man, defense attorney Paul Madriani uncovers a morass of corruption and greed that leads to the highest levels of political power. One of the most successful lawyers in the country, Olinda Serna is a master at managing money as well as her influential clients. After years of fierce combat in the political trenches, Serna knows all the dirty secrets, where the bodies are buried, and how deeply they are stacked. When she\u27s killed in a roadside crash in the high desert of Southern California, powerful heads in Washington begin to panic, worried that their secrets may not be safe anymore. Alex Ives, a friend of Paul Madriani\u27s daughter, is accused of vehicular manslaughter in Serna\u27s death. Ives claims he had only one drink on the night of the accident, yet he can\u27t remember anything between the time he left for a party north of San Diego and the moment he woke up in a hospital the next morning. He\u27s still dazed and a little bruised, but also obviously very afraid. After all, a woman is dead, and he\u27s sure he didn\u27t kill her. To save an innocent young man\u27s life, the brilliant defense attorney must uncover everything he can about Serna and her clients--no matter how unsavory--a search that will lead him into a vortex of corruption, and at its center, a devious killer poised to strike again -- provided by publisherhttps://scholarship.law.ua.edu/harper_lee_prize_books_2016/1014/thumbnail.jp
Devil\u27s bridge
No full textThe Manhattan waterfront is one of New York City\u27s most magnificent vistas, boasting both the majestic Statue of Liberty and the George Washington Bridge, the world\u27s busiest span for motor vehicles. But in Devil\u27s Bridge, Detective Mike Chapman will discover the peril that lurks along this seemingly benign expanse as he takes on his most personal case yet: the disappearance of Alex Cooper. Coop\u27s sudden disappearance is fraught with terrifying complications: scores of enemies she has made after a decade of putting criminals behind bars a recent security breach with dangerous repercussions and a new intimacy in her relationship with Mike, causing the Police Commissioner himself to be wary of the methods Mike will use to get Coop back... if he can. --from publisher\u27s descriptionhttps://scholarship.law.ua.edu/harper_lee_prize_books_2016/1007/thumbnail.jp
The Lost History of the Political Question Doctrine
Get PDFThis Article challenges the conventional narrative about the political question doctrine Scholars commonly assert that the doctrine which instructs that certain constitutional questions are committed to Congress or to the executive branch has been part of our constitutional system since the early nineteenth century Furthermore scholars argue that the doctrine is at odds with the current Supreme Court\u27s view of itself as the supreme expositor of all constitutional questions This Article calls into question both claims The Article demonstrates first that the current political question doctrine does not have the historical pedigree that scholars attribute to it In the nineteenth century political questions were not constitutional questions but instead were factual determinations made by the political branches that courts treated as conclusive in the course of deciding cases Second when the current doctrine was finally created in the midtwentieth century the Supreme Court used it to entrench rather than to undermine the Court\u27s emerging supremacy over constitutional law Under the current doctrine the Court asserts for itself the power to decide which institution decides any constitutional question With control over that firstorder question the Court can conclude not only that an issue is textually committed to a political branch but also that an issue is committed to the Court itself This analysis turns on its head the assumption of scholars that the current doctrine is at odds with judicial supremacy The modern political question doctrine is a species of ” not a limitation on ” judicial supremac