Digital Collections @ Suffolk
Not a member yet
8574 research outputs found
Sort by
Power, Control, Cigarettes, and Gum: Whether and Inmate\u27s Consent to Engage in a Relationship with a Correctional Officer Can Be a Defense to the Inmate\u27s Allegation of a Civil Rights Violation under the Eighth Amendment
Get PDF
2014 Suffolk University commencement program, Law School
Get PDFSuffolk University commencement programs detail the location, date, order of exercises, academic honors, speakers, administration, graduates, and other related information. Unless otherwise indicated, programs cover graduate and undergraduate ceremonies for all schoolshttps://dc.suffolk.edu/comm/1182/thumbnail.jp
The GPL Meets the UCC: Does Free Software Come with a Warranty of No Infringement of Patents and Copyrights?
Get PDFThe GNU General Public License, known as the GPL, is the cornerstone of free software. The GPL has served as the organizing document for free software, providing a structure that has helped transformed the development of software and electronic devices. Software licensed under the GPL may be freely copied and adapted. The source code for the software is made available, to enable anyone to study and change it. The GPL does have copyleft restrictions, intended to keep the software free for others. If someone adapts and redistributes GPL’d software, they must likewise allow access to their source code. The GPL states that the code is provided \u27AS IS\u27 WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. The clause may not be quite accurate. The licensor makes no warranty of quality that the software will work. But, due to idiosyncrasies of the Uniform Commercial Code, someone who sells software under the GPL may – unknowingly – make a warranty of noninfringement, promising that use of the software does not infringe any patents, copyrights or other third party rights. Someone who sells software under the GPL might be liable for damages, if the buyer were sued by a third party claiming patent or copyright infringement. This paper works through the relevant legal code, assesses the risk to developers, sellers of devices with embedded software and other licensors, and suggests practical ways to reduce the risk
Court Limitations on \u27Cap and Trade\u27 Regulation: Administrative Law Decisions Applicable to the Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, E.U.-ETS, and U.S. Regulation
No full text‘Cap-and-trade’ regulation is the regulatory 21st century tool used in environmental law and climate change regulation. It is a key mechanism employed under the U.S. Clean Air Act, integral to the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol for greenhouse gas control, and the regulatory foundation of carbon control legislation in every U.S. state which regulates carbon. This modern ‘cap-and-trade’ mechanism for environmental regulation has been challenged in recent litigation in the U.S. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in every one of five recent legal challenges has held EPA’s use of ‘cap-and-trade’ to be illegal. In only one case, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 reversed the Circuit Court. ‘Cap-and-trade’ regulation to mitigate climate change is now under similar challenge. Judicial review of the legality of regulation is established in various common law (including the U.S., England, Australia, Canada, India, Singapore, Pakistan, and South Africa) and civil law countries. In the U.S., a significant portion of the E.P.A. federal ‘cap-and-trade’ environmental regulation has been ruled illegal by the U.S. federal courts, as has some of the state of California’s ‘cap-and-trade’ regulation of carbon emissions and climate change. This article examines the administrative law, legislative enactments, and judicial interpretation of U.S. ‘cap-and-trade’ regulation and California’s carbon ‘cap-and-trade’ regulation as a viable legal mechanism. The lessons for legislative and administrative law apply to many world countries, and to carbon and global warming ‘cap-and-trade’ regulation is now moving forward in several countries toward a sustainable future
The Double Helix of Supremacy and Commerce Clause Constitutional Restraints Encircling the New Energy Frontier
No full textThis article unwinds the legal double helix to examine the constitutional jurisdictional assault on American energy infrastructure and law. We examine pivotal elements of the Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and procedural aspects of ongoing challenges on energy and climate change law. We untwist and dissect energy law and regulation, focusing on key cases in the East, the Midwest, and California. In integrating the recent federal court interpretations, the Article I and VI constitutional double helix remains the critical legal restriction arresting the future of U.S. energy policy and infrastructure. Each region\u27s law creates a distinct wedge into energy infrastructure, and the viability of state regulation encountering constitutional \u27trip wires.\u27 This article explores recent state energy law, successful complex constitutional challenges to its viability, and the resultant constitutional U.S. energy future
What’s Your Problem?
Get PDFMonday morning a corporate client asks you to draft a press release announcing a recall of one of its toys that contained lead paint, alerting its customers, but cautiously avoiding any admissions of liability. The following day, a different client, who professes his innocence, asks whether he should accept a guilty plea with a reduced sentence or risk going to trial. The next day, a client asks you to review an offer to settle an allegation of copyright infringement for downloading a movie. Then, in another case, a supervisor asks you to argue a motion to dismiss a complaint, but there appears to be no legal or factual basis to support the motion. Finally, on Friday, a landlord seeks your help when one of his tenants accuses another tenant of sexual harassment. These are just some of the types of problems lawyers could face in just one week. Would law students know how to solve them? No matter what the legal issue or setting, understanding and applying a problem-solving methodology and focusing on the client in each case can help prepare students for practice. Students engaged in problem solving in law school benefit from experiencing the primary role of a lawyer-a problem solver enabling students to see the connection between legal knowledge, theory, and skills to help achieve a client\u27s goals
