43674 research outputs found
Sort by
Optimal Deterrence and the Preference Gap
Get PDFIt is generally understood that the way to discourage particular behavior in individuals is to punish that behavior, on the theory that rational individuals seek to avoid punishment. Laws aimed at deterring behavior operate on the assumption that increasing the likelihood of punishment, the severity of punishment, or both, will decrease the behavior. The success of these laws is evaluated by how much the targeted behavior decreases. The law of preferential transfers—which punishes creditors who have been paid prior to a bankruptcy filing at the expense of other, unpaid creditors—has been defended on the grounds that it deters a race to collect from a struggling debtor. However, deterrence theory suggests that the low likelihood of punishment and the cap on punishment associated with preference law make it a very poor deterrence. Further, empirical evidence drawn from interviews with affected creditors, debtors, and attorneys demonstrates that in practice preference law does little or nothing to deter targeted behavior and, in the process, imposes significant costs. The weaknesses of preference law call for its significant revision, to place a greater focus on specific categories of creditors to be punished on account of their pre-bankruptcy activities
The Federal Circuit\u27s Summary Affirmance Habit
Get PDFThe Federal Circuit is certainly unique among the circuit courts of appeals. Its exclusive jurisdiction over patents places it in a powerful position. But with that power comes a responsibility to oversee the development of the law. And in the last decade, the court has fallen short of fulfilling this obligation—particularly with regard to clarifying provisions of the America Invents Act. The court has repeatedly disregarded important questions of law by use of Rule 36 summary affirmance. Though other courts of appeals regularly use summary disposition as a means of dealing with burgeoning dockets, the Federal Circuit uses summary affirmance at a much higher rate and to dismiss unresolved legal questions. This Comment explores some of the possible reasons why the court uses summary affirmance so frequently. After discussing summary disposition more generally, it specifically presents the theory of certproofing—or avoiding Supreme Court review—as one possible explanation. It concludes by offering some solutions to curb the court’s summary affirmance habit
Addressing the Bullying and Harassment of Students with Disabilities Through School Compliance to Avoid Litigation
Get PDFThe BYU Advocate
Get PDFWhat impresses me is that BYU Law is putting significant effort into thinking about innovation, not just for innovation\u27s sake, but to better prepare its students for an increasingly complex and unpredictable world. – Robert Ambrogihttps://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/annual_reports/1007/thumbnail.jp
Stuart Wood and Laurie Wood Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. KNS International, L.L.C., a Utah Limited Liability Company and United Parcel Service, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant/Appellee : Brief of Appellee
Get PDFBRIEF OF APPELLEE
Appeal from the Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake County, UtahHonorable Matthew Bates, Presidin
The State of Utah, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Matthew Gordon Eyre Defendant/Appellant : Reply Brief
Get PDFREPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT
Appeal from a judgment of conviction for aggravated robbery, in violationof Utah Code 76-6-302, a first-degree felony, in the Third Judicial District, inand for Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the Honorable Royal I. Hansenpresiding
Salt Lake County, Duchesne County, Uintah County, Washington County, and Weber County, Political Subdivisions of the State of Utah, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State of Utah, Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Skywest Airlines, Inc., Defendants-Appellees : Reply Brief
Get PDFSupplemental Reply Brief of Appellee State of Utah
On appeal from the Third Judicial District CourtJudge Kara Pettit, District Court No. 17090452
