Digital Commons @ UDC Law (University of the District of Columbia Law Library)
Not a member yet
840 research outputs found
Sort by
The District Of Columbia Revitalization Act And Criminal Justice: The Federal Government\u27s Assault On Local Authority
No full textThe District of Columbia ( the District ) enjoys a unique relationship with the federal government. As a matter of Constitutional pronouncement, citizens of the District are deprived of the right to ultimate control over the content of local laws. The Constitution provides that, [t]he Congress shall have the power ... to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States. 2 Since the District\u27s establishment in 1791, 3 Congress has not hesitated to exercise its legislative authority over local matters, frequently promulgating laws that affect both the structure of local government and the substantive elements of the local code.
Substantially Limited Protection From Disability Discrimination: The Special Treatment Model and Misconstructions of the Definition of Disability
No full textDISABILITY\u27 nondiscrimination laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA),2 and the disability rights movement which spawned them have, at their core, a central premise that is both simple and profound. That premise is that people denominated as disabled are just people, not different in any critical way from other people. Paradoxically, commentators, enforcement agencies and the courts, with manifest good intentions, have frequently interpreted and applied these laws in ways that reinforce a diametrically opposite premise-that people with disabilities are significantly different, special and need exceptional status and protection, One is reminded of Justice Brandeis\u27s admonition that citizens should be most on guard when Government\u27s purposes are beneficent and that the greatest dangers arise from encroachment by [people] of zeal, -well-meaning but without understanding.
West Virginia Corporate Law: Is It Broke ?
No full textWe are all familiar with the cliche if it ain\u27t broke, don\u27t fix it. The sentiment is as applicable to law as it is to the rest of life. When a law does what it is intended to do, legislators and courts should leave it alone. However, when a law no longer serves its intended purpose, it is broke, and should be revised. The question is whether West Virginia\u27s corporate law is broke. In 1974, the West Virginia Legislature adopted the West Virginia Corporation Act (the Act ).\u27 The Act brought then modem standards of corporate law to West Virginia. Since that adoption, corporate law in West Virginia has remained virtually unchanged However, the model codes on which the Act was based have been substantially revised to reflect changes in business practices.3 Consequently, the Act no longer reflects modem standards of corporate law. The failure to keep pace with the evolving standards of corporate law is particularly interesting in light of the fact that the legislature has continually adopted and revised other business entity laws in the state to keep pace with modem standards.4 A corporate law that reflects less than modem standards does not necessarily translate into a broken corporate law. Modem standards of corporate law are not necessarily appropriate for West Virginia. It does, however, suggest that the time has come to reevaluate the Act. This Article begins that process
The Single Publication Rule: One Action Not One Law
No full textRecovery in one action under one state\u27s law for violation of the right of publicity-the right to control the commercial use of one\u27s identity-arising out of multistate publication2 seems to be the trend of the nineties. When Samsung ran a nationwide print advertisement for VCRs depicting a robot dressed to resemble her, Vanna White sued for violation of her right of publicity.3 Under California law she recovered 2,375,000.6 Bette Midler sued Ford Motor Company for violation of her right of publicity when a television commercial for the Sable, a Ford automobile, imitating her distinctive singing style aired nationwide.7 Under California lav she recovered 250,000 plus punitive damages for violation of her right of publicity. The action followed national advertisements for the Game Show Network which allegedly used Ms. Harris\u27s voice without her consent.9 Another actor, Leonard Tepper, is suing Woody Fraser Enterprises and ABC for over one million dollars for violation of his right of publicity. The action followed national broadcasts by ABC of a television special which allegedly included Mr. Tepper\u27s image without his consent. 0 Both Dennis Rodman and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar have filed suits alleging, among other things, violation of their right of publicity. Still more actions are sure to ensue.\u27 While the right of publicity is currently recognized in half the.states, the other half do not recognize this right as a basis for recovery.\u2
Holder v. Hall: Blinking At Minority Voting Rights
No full textParts I and II of this Article discuss the sole commissioner form of government in Bleckley County and the nature and disposition of plaintiffs\u27 Section 2 challenge in the lower courts. Part III analyzes the decision of the Supreme Court, its formalistic construction of Section 2, and the Court\u27s retreat from voting rights enforcement. Part IV is a critique of the concurring opinion of Justice Thomas and responds to his arguments that the creation of majority-minority districts improperly embroils the courts in political theorizing and is a form of segregation. This Article concludes with a discussion of the critical role of vote dilution jurisprudence and the importance of the creation of majority-minority districts in ensuring effective minority political participation
