18809 research outputs found
Sort by
Gladys Hampton Affordable Preservation, LLC. v. Goodwin
No full textIn this nonpayment proceeding, the tenant moved to consolidate several similar proceedings against the same landlord, citing common issues regarding VAWA compliance and the landlord\u27s alleged failure to serve required HUD-5382 forms as a condition precedent. The landlord cross-moved for sanctions, alleging frivolous conduct. The court partially granted the tenant\u27s motion to consolidate, combining cases in similar procedural postures involving the same building and petitioner. The court denied the landlord\u27s cross-motion, finding the tenant\u27s motion was not frivolous. The tenant\u27s motion to dismiss the petitions was deferred and restored for a future status conference
The Law of Disqualification and Problems with the Supreme Court Code of Conduct
Full text linkIn this Article, we analyze the federal disqualification statute applicable to federal judges, magistrates, and Justices of the Supreme Court as compared to the disqualification provisions of the United States Supreme Court Code of Conduct and detail the ways in which the standards contained within the Code are contrary to law and history. To provide proper context, we examine the history, case law, and statutory framework that have created the current standards of judicial disqualification for all Article III judges and Justices. We demonstrate that the Court is bound to apply disqualification procedures in accordance with the United States Constitution, common law, and existing statutes. Our analysis also shows that the Court, in its Code of Conduct, has incorrectly claimed that the common law concepts of the “duty to sit” and the “rule of necessity” act as exceptions to statutorily imposed disqualification duties when in fact neither concept factors into the analysis of whether a Justice must disqualify themselves from considering a case. Finally, we propose legislative changes to remove any possible ambiguity regarding the requirements of the law of disqualification
Navigating the Legal Risk Universities’ Healthcare Providers Potentially Face from Medical Decisions Impacting Collegiate Athletes’ Future NIL Income While Following the NCAA’s Mental Health Best Practices
Full text linkLike It or Not: Recognizing a Special Relationship Between Social Media Companies and Their Users
Full text linkWhen the internet plays a role in a plaintiff’s injury, there can be considerable roadblocks barring recovery. At the heart of the dispute over how social media should be legally addressed is the balance between maintaining freedom of expression on the open internet and imposing regulations on social media companies to ensure online safety. When plaintiffs allege that a social media company had a duty to warn them about dangers on its site, courts are generally reluctant to extend the special relationship doctrine to encompass the social media-user relationship. In addition to the high bar set by courts, different jurisdictions vary in their analyses of the special relationship question, often resulting in the plaintiffs’ claims being dismissed.
This Note examines the different factors that courts consider when deciding whether to create a special relationship, both in internet and noninternet cases. This Note then advocates for courts to place greater emphasis on a social media company’s superior knowledge when evaluating the company’s duty to warn. To demonstrate how that may affect the outcome of future cases, this Note will analyze Internet Brands v. Doe from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit through the lens of superior knowledge. This Note concludes by recognizing the importance of social media in modern society but ultimately calls for legal reform to hold social media companies responsible for the safety of their users
CROSS BRONX PRESERVATION LLC v. DELGADO
Full text linkIn this nonpayment eviction proceeding, the landlord sought to evict the tenant for nonpayment of rent, citing an outstanding balance from August 2020 to July 2023. The tenant filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the landlord failed to serve the required 30-day notice to vacate under the CARES Act and did not meet the notice requirements under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The court found that both notices were necessary for this Section 8 housing case and that the failure to comply with these requirements rendered the petition defective. The court dismissed the case without prejudice, emphasizing the importance of proper notice requirements in eviction proceedings involving subsidized housing programs
Properly Partitioning Prejudice: Analyzing Mixed \u3ci\u3eBrady\u3c/i\u3e and \u3ci\u3eNapue\u3c/i\u3e Claims
Full text linkDue process affords criminal defendants the right to receive evidence possessed by the government that would aid in their defense. This right was codified in Brady v. Maryland. Brady’s lesser-known ancestor is Napue v. Illinois, which gave defendants the right to a new trial if the government knowingly offered perjured testimony in their original trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that these rights are critical to support verdicts worthy of confidence necessary to ensure due process.
Unfortunately, defendants victimized by misconduct are often affected by multiple violations of their rights. Courts have developed ways to examine the prejudicial effect of multiple Brady claims in a single case, but introducing Napue claims with Brady presents an analytical challenge because of the differing standards needed for a new trial under each type of claim. This Note examines how federal circuits have analyzed mixed-claim cases, where a defendant alleges both Brady and Napue claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has analyzed all Napue claims together with Brady claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has analyzed some Brady claims together with Napue claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has analyzed using a combination of the other two tests. This Note argues that the Ninth Circuit framework is the best of the three at accurately apportioning claims when analyzing mixed-claim cases, but that courts should adopt a modified methodology to more accurately account for the serious harm perjured testimony inflicts on a trial