The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law
Not a member yet
5983 research outputs found
Sort by
Domestic Relations: Selected Uniform Laws, Model Legislation, Federal Statutes, State Statutes, & International Treaties (2021 statutory and documentary supp. to 9th ed. 2021)
No full textThis six-hundred page compendium of statutory materials affecting family law includes uniform acts, state and federal statutes, and international treaties. Each of the statutes is preceded by an editors\u27 introduction, which includes relevant legal periodicals to assist with understanding how that particular statute applies. This book is meant to complement the ninth edition of the family law casebook, which shall be published by Foundation Press shortly, but the book may support a separate course on the interaction between common law and statutory interaction.https://scholarship.law.edu/fac_books/1138/thumbnail.jp
Property and Local Knowledge
Get PDFProperty rights play an important but largely under-appreciated role in channeling local knowledge into decisions about physical resources. Property devolves decision-making authority to a dispersed pool of owners, who are likely to be aware of local conditions relevant to their resources. As a result, property owners are often in a position to make better-informed decisions about the use of the resource than other parties. The homeowner who preemptively repairs an old roof, the retailer who offers a new product for sale, and the farmer who decides to switch crops are all decision-makers who are empowered through property rights to act on local knowledge that no one else may have. This article seeks to explain the local knowledge function of property rights, beginning with how arguments from local knowledge can help justify the pervasive institution of private property. When ownership is not unduly concentrated, property rights can facilitate better-informed decision-making about resources than more centralized resource management regimes, yielding better outcomes according to a range of consequentialist criteria. The article goes on to consider how the local knowledge function of property can explain some of the fundamental features of property law. In particular, this theory helps explain owners’ agenda-setting authority, the central place of possession in property law, the principle of accession, as well as doctrines that restrict the ongoing control of past owners
In the Name of Diversity: Why Mandatory Diversity Statements Violate the First Amendment and Reduce Intellectual Diversity in Academia
Get PDFIn the 1950s and 1960s in many parts of the country, a professor could be fired or never hired if he refused to denounce communism or declare loyalty to the United States Constitution. The University of California system took the lead in enforcing these loyalty oaths. These loyalty oaths were challenged all the way up to the United States Supreme Court and were soundly rejected, establishing the centrality of academic freedom and open inquiry on the university campus. So why are loyalty oaths making their resurgence in the form of mandatory diversity statements? Universities have begun requiring faculty members to declare fealty to a particular worldview and approach towards matters of diversity. In an irony that appears to be missed on campus diversity bureaucrats, these statements are being deployed in the name of diversity. And in another historical irony, this trend has once again been spearheaded in the University of California system. While these diversity statement were initially conceived of as just an additional factor to be weighed along with academic merit, teaching, and service, the purpose and use of these statements has radically morphed over the past few years. At some of the campuses today, a prospective professor who does not produce a diversity statement that will satisfy diversity bureaucrats, will be excluded from consideration without a review of any other aspect of his application. And the rubrics that are being deployed engage in blatant viewpoint discrimination, as well as a viewpoint based evaluation of the applicant’s research. At these campuses, it is unlikely, for instance, that an aspiring professor who shares the viewpoint Chief Justice Roberts that “[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” could be hired. Can a university employ such viewpoint based criterion in its hiring process, or do the First Amendment rights of individual professors foreclose such viewpoint based discrimination?
This article examines this question in the context of the long standing debate over the First Amendment rights of Professors, and trends in academia that have undermine professorial academic freedom. It argues that diversity statements must be carefully scrutinized by Courts and that if they are being used as ideological litmus tests, as they clearly are at the University of California, they must be struck down as unconstitutional
Keynote Remarks
No full textAllison is a graduate of Catholic Law’s Communications Law Institute (now the Law and Technology Institute) and has built an impressive career in space law. In her role at Boeing, Allison leads the organization responsible for radio frequency spectrum, and acquisition, compliance, and regulatory advocacy. She is also Boeing’s lead representative to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU)—a United Nations organization based in Geneva, Switzerland. Allison’s keynote address entitled, “New Space Law Creation to Enable Space Innovation,” provided an overview of the ITU as well as the ITU’s influence over the international telecommunications ecosystem
Commercialization of Space
No full textThe first panel focused on the basic building blocks of space law, particularly the regulatory landscape within the United States, and touched upon the effect of treaties in space law. Many of the questions discussed in the second half of the session highlighted how rapidly the sphere of space law is evolving and touched upon some questions that remain unanswered, such as the fulfillment of international treaty obligations
Hybrid IP Rights For Software, APIs, and GUIs: Understanding Copyright\u27s Paradigm Shift
Get PDFThe non-literal scope of protection for software is intricate legally and is intricate technical. Thus, despite literally decades of court decisions and a mountain of legal scholar written on the subject in that time, it appears that there is still no consistent agreement about it, as evidenced by the Google v. Oracle which has percolated in the courts for nearly a decade and is now being heard by the US Supreme Court (oral argument was on October 7, 2020). However, the thesis of this article that a legal construct is capable of being formulated that is analytically consistent and that explains some of decisions that reach contrary outcomes (or dicta expressing some contrary views)
Police Perceptions, Knowledge, and Performance: Traffic Stops and the Use of K-9 Units
Get PDFThis empirical (survey) study of law enforcement officers aims to shed light on police conduct and knowledge concerning traffic stops, vehicle searches and the use of canine (K-9) units. This context is particularly relevant in light of a recent United States Supreme Court case in this area, Rodriguez v. United States, which held that when the mission of a routine traffic stop has been or reasonably should have been completed (i.e., the officer has issued a traffic ticket or a warning after having checked license, registration, insurance, and/ or warrants), the officer may not in general detain the vehicle occupant(s) while waiting for a police canine unit to arrive to perform a search, or “sniff,” for drugs or other contraband around the vehicle perimeter. No other known empirical study of police “line” officers’ performance and knowledge with regard to vehicle searches and canine units exists, and therefore this study fills a significant gap in the literature. The specific research questions this study aims to address are: (1): Whether officers with (A) exposure to training on vehicle stops and searches and/or (B) more years of experience in law enforcement, will have greater levels of proper knowledge concerning the holding, or ruling of Rodriguez v. United States?; and (2) Whether officers with (A) exposure to training on vehicle stops and searches and/or (B) more years of experience in law enforcement, will exhibit higher levels of proper performance, or conduct, regarding the ruling of Rodriguez v. United States? Using a logistic regression analysis, the study found, in part, that police officers with more than 5 years of experience in law enforcement show a lower percentage of proper performance related to Rodriguez vs. United States compared to officers with 5 years or less of experience. Accordingly, police officers’ years of experience have a negative, but statistically significant effect on proper performance related to the Rodriguez decision. Overall, the majority of police officers surveyed showed both proper knowledge of the principal holding of Rodriguez and proper performance that aligns with that holding, or rule. Nonetheless, sizeable minorities of officers failed to show proper knowledge or performance related to Rodriguez
The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) and Achieving Uniformity of Case Law on Sanctions For ESI Spoliation: Focusing on the “Intent To Deprive” Culpability Under Rule 37(e)(2)
Get PDFFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) was adopted in 2015 primarily to resolve the circuit split and promote uniformity of case law on ESI (electronically stored information) spoliation sanctions. This Article examines relevant case law under the new Rule 37(e) and finds that courts have treated similar spoliation conduct differently due to the lack of a clear standard for finding the spoliator\u27s intent to deprive another party of the use of the destroyed ESI at issue. This inconsistency has been exacerbated by the courts’ inconsistent reliance on their inherent authority to sanction based on bad faith analyses. Therefore, this Article proposes establishing a clear and strict standard for courts across the nation to apply in determining whether the spoliator acted with the intent to deprive another party of the use of the relevant ESI under Rule 37(e)(2). Such a standard requires demonstration of the spoliator\u27s willful, intentional act that destroyed the relevant ESI in addition to supporting evidence that sheds light on the spoliator\u27s actual state of mind and intent to deprive another party of the use of the destroyed ESI in litigation. Once courts begin to exclusively apply the proposed heightened standard for Rule 37(e)(2) and no longer rely on their inherent authority or bad faith findings, the inconsistency in case law that has resulted from courts’ reliance on inherent authority and bad faith analyses to date will no longer result, which would be a significant step towards achieving uniformity in case law on ESI spoliation sanctions
Child Support and Joint Physical Custody
Get PDFChild custody has evolved to the point where, at a minimum, states provide a mediated process by which parents may formulate parenting plans with court-appointed assistance. At a maximum state legislatures and courts increasingly consider joint physical custody awards. While joint physical custody safeguards the fundamental rights of parents, it nonetheless prompts practical concerns in awarding child support. Today, child support begins with state statutory guidelines, but the guidelines often fail to adequately address the economic consequences of two complete residences, one supported by a parent with fewer economic resources, and the fact that oftentimes the child drifts from one to the other soon after the court order.
This Article argues that child custody and child support should be formulated in the similar fashion. That is, borrowing the approach proposed by the American Law Institute, it is prudent for separating couples to be assisted in developing a child support plan, just as they are assisted in developing a child parenting (custody) plan. The federalization of child support, the guidelines, and the enforcement mechanisms involved, distract states from the urgency of involving parents, together with professionals, in formulating workable child support plans. The child support guidelines are and will remain the first step, but they cannot be the last if child support is to be equal with child custody in providing for the best interest of the child