7078 research outputs found
Sort by
Railroading Interstate Corporations: Personal Jurisdiction and Dormant Commerce After Mallory V. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
Full text linkIn Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., the Supreme Court resurrected a long-dormant theory of personal jurisdiction: that by registering to do business in a state, a corporation consents to general jurisdiction. This Comment critiques the Mallory plurality’s reliance on pre-International Shoe caselaw, arguing that the decision unnecessarily sidesteps decades of precedent, mistakes coercion for consent, and inaptly analogizes registration- jurisdiction statutes to tag jurisdiction on individuals. It further explores Justice Alito’s concurring concern that such statutes may violate the Dormant Commerce Clause by imposing disproportionate burdens on out-of-state corporations without corresponding state benefits. Finally, the Comment uses Wisconsin as a case study to explore whether states should adopt similar statutes, concluding that the costs of doing so, including court congestion and promoting forum shopping, far outweigh any potential advantages. After the Court cabined general jurisdiction over the past several decades, Mallory opens a controversial back door that courts and legislatures should approach with caution
What is Substantial Similarity ? Towards a Methodology for Reducing Subjectivity in Design Copyright Disputes
Full text linkNon
Withdrawing Lanham Act Section 2(c) Consent: What Should Courts Do?
Full text linkThe dispute between Luka Dončić and his mother over his ability to withdraw consent to a trademark of his name revealed a gap in trademark law. This Comment explains the lack of legal guidance on how a court should rule if a person initially gives their consent to use their name as a trademark but later wishes to withdraw that consent. The Comment addresses two contrasting ideas. The first is the freedom to contract and the desire of courts to protect the voluntary consent of individuals to allow others to trademark their name. Alternatively, the Comment addresses the right of publicity as a tool for public figures to protect their names and, ultimately, their livelihoods. With both in mind, the Comment proposes adopting a balancing test currently accepted by the Supreme Court to decide whether an injunction should be granted in patent infringement cases. By weighing factors like public policy and the hardships on both parties, the Comment seeks to address the unanswered question presented by the unique contract between an NBA player and his mother
Looking For Liability For Harmful Social Media Content And Cyberbullying After Gonzalez v. Google, LLC
Full text linkNon
COVID-19 Sports Competition Lockdowns, Return-to-Play Decisions, and Participation Requirements: A Retrospective Review and Future Medicolegal Framework
Full text linkRegulating Crypto Intermediaries
Full text linkEarly 2024 produced a dramatic rebound in cryptocurrency markets as Bitcoin hit an all-time high price in March 2024. This surge was fueled in large part by judicial and regulatory action. After years of denials and a high-profile defeat in court, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finally approved the first exchange-traded funds (ETFs) for Bitcoin in January 2024. Many believe that these approvals will lead to a greater shift of investment funds into crypto. Crypto regulation is not, however, ready for this shift. While ETFs have clear treatment under current law, other institutions lack the same clarity or simply operate outside of regulation. These regulatory gaps produced the failures and scandals of recent years, such as Voyager and FTX, which inflicted large losses on investors. Policymakers should fill these gaps by treating crypto like a subspecialty of financial regulation, which supports the safety and operation of intermediaries like mutual funds and banks. Intermediaries, like crypto exchanges, should be required to hold appropriate assets to secure customers’ claims. These reserves must also be segregated to guard against self-dealing and insolvency. Ultimately, the goal should not be to make cryptocurrency safe. Rather, regulation should focus on the soundness of institutions (like FTX) that offer crypto to investors
