Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Not a member yet
3445 research outputs found
Sort by
Limiting A Driver’s Limited Right To Counsel In DWI Proceedings: State v. Rosenbush, 931 N.W.2d 91 (Minn. 2019)
Get PDFThe Immigration Judiciary\u27s Need for Independence: Breaking Free from the Shackles of the Attorney General
Get PDFReflections: Weaving Threads to Strengthen the Fabric of Our Communities
Get PDFThis publication primarily contains pieces written by participants in the Dispute Resolution Institute’s (DRI) 2017 Symposium entitled: An Intentional Conversation About Public Engagement: Weaving Threads to Strengthen the Fabric of our Communities. The Symposium was the second one devoted to public engagement and followed the 2015 biennial symposium entitled An Intentional Conversation About Public Engagement and Decision Making: Moving from Dysfunction and Polarization to Dialogue and Understanding. Articles from 2015 Symposium were published in the Mitchell Hamline Law Review. The Symposium and Reflections were generously funded by a grant from the American Arbitration Association- International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICDR) Foundation.
Chapter AuthorsJoseph BauerkemperToby BerkmanElizabeth DresselDanny EgolSuzanne GhaisTadd JohnsonMariah LevisonKevin LindseyJill Slipper ScholtzRebecca St. GeorgeTom Wahlrabhttps://open.mitchellhamline.edu/dri_press/1010/thumbnail.jp
Disability Discrimination in Higher Education: The Enabling Spirit of American Disability Legislation in Conflict with Judicial Interpretation
Get PDFDisabled individuals have historically been treated as second-class citizens in the United States. While improvements have certainly been made over time, disabled individuals still face significant barriers to enjoying full and equal participation in society. Higher education is one aspect of American society still lacking proportional representation of the disabled community. To try and understand why disabled Americans fail to thrive in higher education at rates approaching those of non-disabled individuals, this paper will examine the following: how the history of disability discrimination in America influenced passage of powerful anti-discrimination legislation; how American courts have generally interpreted that legislation to the detriment of Americans with disabilities in higher education, and what is and is not a reasonable accommodation. This paper will conclude with a summary of statistics pointing to the dearth of disabled student success in higher education, as well as suggestions of how the American legal system, and American higher education in general, could be improved to facilitate greater success for individuals with disabilities
The Canary in the Military Justice Mineshaft: A Review of Recent Sexual Assault Courts-Martial Tainted by Unlawful Command Influence
Get PDF
Public Official, Figures, and Controversies in Minnesota Defamation Law
Get PDFIn Minnesota, the plaintiff in a common law defamation claim is entitled to recover presumed damages in libel and slander per se cases. Those rules change when the First Amendment is injected into defamation cases when the plaintiff is a public official or figure or is a private person involved in a public controversy. A plaintiff who is a public official or figure must prove not only the elements of the common law defamation claim, but also that the defamatory communication was a false statement of fact and prove by clear and convincing evidence that it was made with actual malice (publication with knowledge of the falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth) in order to recover presumed damages. A private person involved in a matter of public concern must prove fault and actual damages in order to recover but must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence to recover presumed damages.
The Minnesota Supreme Court clarified the application of those standards in two defamation cases decided in 2019. In Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., the court held that the fault and actual damages requirements in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. apply to defamatory statements relating to public controversies involving private persons, even if published by nonmedia defendants. In McGuire v. Bowlin, decided a little more than two months after Maethner, the court held that a public school basketball coach was not a public official for purposes of the application of the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan actual malice standard. In so holding, the court clarified the standards it adopted in 1991 in Britton v. Koep, for resolving the public official issue. The court also held that the coach was not a public figure because he was not involved in a public controversy