STU Scholarly Works (St. Thomas University)
Not a member yet
1001 research outputs found
Sort by
Bargain Avoidance in A Competitive Bargain Market: The Car Sales Conundrum
No full textThis article evaluates the critical period during a car sale transaction. It highlights the deceptive structure of car selling and financing, and seller domination of that structure. This article argues that seller abuse goes unchecked mainly because available disclosure rules are not responsive to the complex bargaining environment in which car deals are made
A Defendant\u27s Right to Exculpatory Evidence: Does the Constitutional Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence Extend to New Evidence Discovered Post-Conviction
No full textThis note will first address Brady and the modifications made to the disclosure law by subsequent cases. Second, this note will explain the ethical obligations concerning a prosecutor\u27s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence post-conviction as set out by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Third, this note will critically examine various case law in which the constitutional duty to disclose is seemingly extended to encompass post-conviction, newly discovered exculpatory evidence in the hands of the prosecutor. Finally, this note will conclude with an analysis and opinion of the disclosure law, discussing why the constitutional duty should be extended post-conviction
Storytelling And Contracts
No full textThis review will proceed as follows: (1) a description of the organization and content of the casebook and the Student Workbook, and (2) an evaluation of the text\u27s pedagogical features, with particular emphasis on the casebook\u27s attention to narrative and storytelling as lawyering skills. I conclude that this is the most literary of the present-day contracts casebooks, and that this literary quality, with its attendant focus on experience, details, back story, and voice also make it by far the most multicultural and feminist contracts casebook. Let me hasten to add that it also does a dam good job of presenting doctrine (particularly through the problems and exercises in the Student Workbook) and of keeping students engaged and energized through one of the most difficult first year subjects
Post-Judgment Relief In Domestic Relations Cases: Does the Process Ever End?
No full textDomestic relations issues concerning post-judgment relief particularly as the relief applies to child support is the focus of this Article. Professor Pertnoy explores the history of domestic relations in the courts and then offers explanations regarding both federal and state courts\u27 treatment of child support in such cases. The Article chronicles one parent\u27s struggle to enforce court ordered child support and offers recommendations for resolving issues of enforcement and modification of support
Exploring the Edge: The Personal Reach of Transnational Agreement to Arbitrate
No full textBook: In einem vereinten Europa dem Frieden der Welt zu dienen--https://scholarship.stu.edu/faculty_book_chapters/1030/thumbnail.jp
The Catholic University as Promise and Project: Reflections in a Jesuit Idiom
No full textFr. Michael Buckley has made an important contribution to the ongoing discussion of how to fulfill the mission and responsibilities of a Catholic university. Holding the Canisius Chair of Systematic Theology at Boston College and directing the Jesuit Institute there, he speaks both knowledgeably and authoritatively about how a Catholic university can reconcile fidelity to its church sponsor with the expectations of academic freedom created by its secular counterparts. Previous work won him a devoted audience for his skill as a theologian. The strength of the current Reflections lies in a series of illuminating excursions into the history of the relationship of church and academy; moreover, his careful explanation of the different meanings of the word humanism is alone worth the price of the volume. On the negative side, Fr. Buckley fails to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the trend toward secularization of religious institutions can be reversed
Academic Freedom After Edwards
No full textWhen the ACLU staged the trial of John Scopes in 1920, its purpose was to suggest in the public mind a contrast between an educator fearlessly searching for truth and a rigid orthodoxy afraid of any challenge. The Scopes case has often been cited as an example of a case in which the battle was lost but the war was won. Those who accept and those who reject the theory of evolution differ sharply over what should be taught in the public schools, but almost everyone affirms the value of academic freedom as opposed to the use of the public schools as a vehicle of indoctrination. Thus, when the Louisiana legislature enacted the Balanced Treatment Act in 1981, its supporters thought that they were on firm ground by prescribing that the teaching of evolution be accompanied by a presentation of creation-science. However, not everyone saw it that way. Indeed, by the time the case reached the United States Supreme Court, a district court judge had already concluded that the Balanced Treatment Act was anything but balanced and, far from promoting academic freedom, was an unconstitutional advancement of religion. In his dissent, Justice Scalia scolded the majority for doing the very thing that it accused the Act\u27s sponsors of perpetrating: a Scopes-in-reverse. Despite the strong disagreements in this particular case, there was nothing in the majority or concurring opinions that would suggest any repudiation of the principle that academic freedom should apply to the question of how to teach the origins controversy. Instead, the debate was over how that principle should be applied to this delicate area. Depending upon how broadly or how narrowly one reads different portions of the Edwards opinion, different conclusions might be drawn as to what school board policies would be consistent or inconsistent with its strictures. For instance, the Court states that one might legitimately teach] a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren . . . with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction. \u27 Thus, one might expect subsequent case law to provide greater clarity for those charged with the responsibility of adopting curriculum standards and classroom policies. Unfortunately, such is not the case. The case law on how best to teach the controversy is scant, and the only guidance comes from cases that are not directly on point. Thus, the purpose of this article is twofold: first, to provide an explanation of those cases that might shed light on the question of how best to teach the controversy, and second, to suggest an approach, consistent with Edwards, that makes sense of the principle of academic freedom. Before doing so, however, the Edwards case must be examined