13203 research outputs found
Sort by
Law and Old-fashioned Root Beer
No full textKeith (JD 1984) and Joe (JD 2017) Hedinger are president and vice president of Hedinger Beverage Distributing Company and the Dad\u27s Root Beer Company in Jasper, Ind., which also makes Dr. Wells, Bubble-Up, and Suncrest soft drinks. The family has been in the soft-drink business for over 65 years, and this father-son team talk about how the law has helped them build on their company\u27s success.https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/coldcall/1004/thumbnail.jp
Unwilling to be Labeled
No full textHon. Clarine Nardi Riddle, JD 1974, counsel with Kasowitz, Benson & Torres in Washington, DC, has served as a trial court judge in Connecticut, as chief of staff to Senator Joseph Lieberman, and as the state\u27s only female attorney general. She is also a founder of No Labels, a bi-partisan organization aimed at moving America from old-politics point-scoring to new-politics problem-solving. Clarine shares insights from her wide-ranging career.https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/coldcall/1005/thumbnail.jp
A Change Agent Extraordinaire
No full textLaurie Robinson Haden is a 1998 graduate of the Law School. During her time in Bloomington, she served as an Associate and then Executive Notes Editor of the Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. In addition to a spectacular career working at Epstein Becker & Green, Seyfarth Shaw, and at CBS Corporation, Laurie is the founder, president and CEO of Corporate Counsel Women of Color. Corporate Counsel Women of Color is a non-profit professional organization, which Laurie created in 2004 to support and advance women of color as attorneys and to foster diversity in the legal profession. It now has more than 4700 members.
Learn more about Laurie Robinson Haden.https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/coldcall/1007/thumbnail.jp
The Constitutional Tort System
Get PDFConstitutional torts—private lawsuits for constitutional wrongdoing—are the primary means by which violations of the U.S. Constitution are vindicated and deterred. Through damage awards, and occasionally injunctive relief, victims of constitutional violations discourage future misconduct while obtaining redress. However, the collection of laws that governs these actions is a complete muddle, lacking any sort of coherent structure or unifying theory. The result is too much and too little constitutional litigation, generating calls for reform from across the political spectrum along with reverberations that reach from Standing Rock to Flint to Ferguson.
This Article constructs a framework of the constitutional tort system, drawing on contemporary tort scholarship’s rich theorization of a similar set of challenges that emerge in the private law context. By framing constitutional litigation as part of an essentially tort-like system, in which the law seeks to facilitate deterrence and compensation without unduly burdening state action, this Article presents an analytical lens that clarifies, challenges, and transforms the law of constitutional torts
Maryland’s Digital Tax and the ITFA’s Catch-22
Get PDFIn this installment of Academic Perspectives on SALT, the authors examine whether statelevel taxes on digital advertising — like Maryland’s new tax — are barred by the Internet Tax Freedom Act and discuss how the act’s prohibition against “discriminatory” taxes on electronic commerce should be construed narrowly
Prosecution for Sticks, Stone, and Words that Killed Conrad Roy: A Look at the Free Speech Fundamentalism Behind Michelle Carter\u27s Conviction
Get PDFInsuring Evolving Technology
Get PDFThe study of the interaction between law and technology is more critical today than ever before. Advancements in artificial intelligence, information communications, biological and chemical engineering, and space-faring technologies, to name but a few examples, are forcing us to reexamine our traditional understanding of basic concepts in torts and insurance law.
Yet, few insurance professionals and scholars will identify themselves as working in the field of “law-and-technology.” For many of them, technology is “just a fact about the world like any other,” as Ryan Calo once put it, not one that always merits “special care.”
This short paper is an attempt to build a first-of-its-kind bridge between these two scholarly silos. Directed at an insurance audience, the paper attempts to draw attention to a body of law-and-technology scholarship that has so far gone mostly unnoticed by insurance professionals.
The paper is built on the premise that insurance lawyers, whose business model depends on the mitigation of losses from technological harm, are not dramatically dissimilar from their law-and-technology counterparts. Both are fascinated by the same set of questions: if, when, and how, might private and public regulation mitigate losses resulting from technological risk. The paper draws key concepts from the law-and-technology literature to explore the effectiveness and utility of regulation in mitigating risks from emerging, evolving, and disruptive technologies. The paper further identifies the different phases in technology’s life cycle and discusses the challenges that each of these phases introduces on the insurance market.
Relying on cyber insurance as its primary case study, the paper concludes by applying these insights to an assessment of a recent state-wide regulation, the New York Cyber Insurance Risk Framework, the first of its kind in the country. The paper demonstrates the promise and pitfalls of this type of regulation, taking into account broader trends in the cyber insurance market
Trial Objections Handbook (2021 Edition)
No full textTrial Objections Handbook is the only resource you need to make or defend every possible evidentiary objection. You\u27ll get clear explanations of all 109 objections commonly used in civil and criminal court, as well as each objection\u27s basis in law. Your objections will be timely, effective, and unshakable, because Trial Objections Handbook covers how to: Instantly recognize improper evidence and respond appropriately with a correctly phrased, well-researched objection Reduce your opponent\u27s opportunities to object by asking questions that will withstand any attackhttps://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facbooks/1324/thumbnail.jp
Is New York’s Mark-to-Market Act Unconstitutionally Retroactive?
Get PDFIt is well known in tax literature that rudimentary tax planning strategies enable wealthy individuals to avoid state and federal income tax on much of their true economic income. Indeed, the existing income tax has been described as being effectively optional for those who derive their income chiefly from the ownership of assets rather than the provision of services. The reason is — except for a few relatively narrowly tailored deemed-realization rules — both state and federal income taxes rely on the realization principle. Under realization accounting, taxpayers generally do not owe tax on economic gains until they sell their appreciated assets. Moreover, this is so even when taxpayers fund lavish lifestyles by borrowing against their appreciated asset
