UIC Law Open Access Repository
Not a member yet
4764 research outputs found
Sort by
The Meaning of Rights, 51 J. Marshall L. Rev. 503 (2018)
Get PDFIn an increasingly inward-looking world governed by populist governments, existing theories of rights are struggling to protect and expand individual rights. This failure can be attributed both to the present conception of rights as well as the absence of a unifying theme to address the existence and conflict of rights. In the present paper I argue that this unifying theme, which is necessary for protection and expansion of individual rights, is provided by “meaning” in an existential and linguistic sense. I assert that the greatest challenge faced by individual rights is in form of a faceless populist doctrine called “public interest.” As long as the issue of conflict of rights will be addressed in a numerical manner, individual rights will stand defeated. We need to come up with a new model for resolution of conflict of rights, which does not examine right holders as integers but as human beings. This paper, which is a continuation of my previous effort on the subject, elaborates upon the existential role of rights and seeks to construct an inviolable nucleus of rights by examining the essence and core meaning of rights. The paper’s final contribution lies in developing a semantical framework for resolution of conflict of rights
Plea Negotiations: Why the Presumption of Waivability Does Not Apply to Federal Rule of Evidence 410, 51 J. Marshall L. Rev. 839 (2018)
Get PDFIllinois’s Class X: One Unhappy Twenty-First Birthday, A Race for a Conviction to Avoid Mandatory Sentencing Enhancements, 51 J. Marshall L. Rev. 905 (2018)
Get PDFThe ADA and the Fight Against Employment Discrimination, 52 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 51 (2018)
Get PDF
Modern Real Estate Finance and Land Transfer: A Transactional Approach
No full textModern Real Estate Finance and Land Transfer provides a clear overview of legal, business, and tax issues in real estate transactions for both commercial and residential contexts. With a focus on real-world applications, students learn the principles of law and mutual consent through examples and problem-solving. The text is suitable for both introductory and advanced courses, organized thematically and chronologically to address Real Estate Sales and Finance while following the lending cycle. Engaging questions help students develop essential skills for the competitive legal landscape.https://repository.law.uic.edu/facbooks/1011/thumbnail.jp
Police, Heroes, and Child Trafficking: Who Cries When Her Attacker Wears Blue?, 18 Nev. L.J. 1007 (2018)
Get PDFAre Two Clauses Really Better Than One? Rethinking the Religion Clause(s), 80 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1 (2018)
Get PDFThe First Amendment begins with two references to the relationship between government and religion. The prohibition on establishment of religion and the guarantee of free exercise of religion, despite their obvious interaction, are generally regarded as separate clauses, and analyzed under tests developed under one or the other. The current state of Establishment Clause doctrine and Free Exercise doctrine is sharply contested and by no means clear. Supreme Court justices will usually classify a religious freedom case as either presenting non-establishment or free exercise issues. Having done so, they will apply the test framed for that clause. But does that lead to the best and most defensible outcome? Might it be better to recognize that what we regard as separate clauses are, rather obviously, two aspects of a single right of religious freedom, and apply a single test that explicitly considers both values? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the closest analog in the Canadian Constitution to the American Bill of Rights, makes no reference to a non-establishment principle. Yet, in their application of the right to religious freedom, Canadian Courts have shown a sensitivity to non-establishment values that seems to equal, and occasionally exceed, that of the Supreme Court of the United States. This Article will explore the possibility that abandoning the notion that a religious freedom case is either an Establishment Clause or a Free Exercise case; instead they are often, if not always, both, and applying a single test, might lead to better outcomes. Part I will explore the recent Supreme Court case of Trinity Lutheran v. Comer and the way many justices insist on privileging one clause over the other, even to the extent of dismissing the other as insignificant in the case. Part II will examine the Supreme Court\u27s 2015 decision in Town of Greece and contrast it with the contemporaneous Supreme Court of Canada decision in City of Sanguenay. Each case presented a similar question of the permissibility of local government bodies opening their sessions with public prayer. The cases reach sharply different conclusions, with Canada weighing non-establishment values more strongly without an express Establishment Clause than the Supreme Court of the United States. Part III will give a very brief history of how each constitutional system developed its own approach to the relationship between government and religion. Finally, Part IV will suggest a single test for religious freedom cases, whether they initially seem to invoke one or both currently separate clauses. This test will largely track the proportionality test used by Canadian (and other western) courts in individual rights cases
Categories of Anti-Obviousness Case Law: (1) Laundry Lists; (2) Redundant Advantages; and (3) Advantage Not Needed and Not Relevant, 17 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 395 (2018)
Get PDFObviousness rejections are most commonly rebutted by arguments that the prior art fails to disclose all the claim elements or that the examiner had failed to assert a proper rationale for combining references. Additional rebuttal strategies include those based on Federal Circuit case law on: (1) Non-analogous art, (2) Rendering the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, (3) Proposed modification cannot change the principle of operation of a reference, (4) Redundant advantages, (5) Advantage provided by the secondary reference is not needed by and not relevant to the primary reference, (6) Disparate references, (7) Context differs between cited references, (8) Teaching away, (9) Claims with Ranges under In re Boesch, and (10) Laundry List disclosure in prior art reference. With the exception of arguments based on, “Claims with Ranges under In re Boesch,” all of the rebuttal strategies in this list are based on case law invoked only in rebuttal arguments, and rarely or never invoked when the examiner imposes an obviousness rejection. Most of these ten rebuttal strategies require comparing the prior art references with each other, where the rebuttal argument asserts that the references are somewhat incompatible with each other. The present article provides the first published review of Laundry List rebuttal arguments, and refines the author\u27s previously published accounts of the anti-obviousness rebuttal strategies relating to Redundant Advantage and to Advantage Not Needed and Not Relevant