Mississippi College School of Law
Not a member yet
1198 research outputs found
Sort by
Understanding “Truth of the Matter Asserted”
No full textMany people struggle to understand hearsay. It’s not their fault. The hearsay definition is confusing and unhelpful, especially its final phrase: that hearsay is an out-of-court statement1 offered to prove “the truth of the matter asserted” in the statement.2 What does “truth of the matter asserted” mean? The definition’s plain language isn’t much help. This paper shares the basic example that I have found to be most effective in my law school evidence classes to diagnose hearsay
Using Political Privilege to Profit: Insider Trading in the Government and S. 2463\u27s Alleged Attempt to Stop It
No full textInsider trading is generally illegal within the United States. However, members of Congress are notorious for regularly engaging in stock trades based on government information that mirrors insider trading. In 2023, Senators Gillibrand and Hawley proposed a bill, unlike any such proposed before, to put an ultimate ban on government insider trading: the “Ban Stock Trading for Government Officials Act” or S. 2463. On its face, S. 2463 appears to address the criticisms surrounding government insider trading. It not only increases regulation and reporting standards but also bans government officials, their spouses, and their dependents from owning any stock during their term of service. Upon deeper inspection, though, it is clear that the Bill is a farce to placate the American public. S. 2463 contains a loophole that allows officials to trade ETFs and mutual funds and enables them to continue insider trading at the market segment level
Liening on the Court: Examining Loblolly Properties, LLC v. Le Papillon Homeowner\u27s Association, Inc. and the Future of Lien Priority in Mississippi
No full textThe Mississippi Supreme Court in Loblolly Properties, LLC v. Le Papillon Homeowner’s Association, Inc. held that the nonjudicial foreclosure of a deed of trust does not extinguish restrictive covenants to pay HOA fees that were filed after the recording of the deed of trust. In doing so, the Court blatantly disregarded the fundamental understanding of lien priority in Mississippi, and also failed to explain how the policy behind lien priority would further be upheld in the future. This decision by the Supreme Court is incorrect and places Mississippi in a “super-minority” of jurisdictions on this issue. The overwhelming majority of courts who have ruled on facts similar to Loblolly have all held contrary to that of the Supreme Court. This Article examines the holding and analysis of the court in Loblolly and offers an explanation as to why the court found the way it did. Finally, this Article lays out the direct consequences of the court\u27s holding and presents several solutions as to how the Court may remedy this disastrous precedent
A Dangerous Challenge to the Constitutionality of the Felon-in-Possession Statute: United States v. Bullock
No full textIn United States v. Bullock, Judge Carlton Reeves held that the federal felon-in-possession statute was unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Bullock. Although Mr. Bullock had been previously convicted of multiple violent felonies involving a firearm, including one that resulted in the death of an individual, Judge Reeves dismissed the charges because the government failed to establish a historical tradition of prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. Judge Reeves’ determination that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Bullock is a decision that is not only “dangerous” to society, but it contradicts the historical tradition of firearm regulation in America. The landmark United States Supreme Court case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen outlined the framework that governs challenges to firearms regulations. The Bruen test dictates that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation . . . the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
This Note, through an application of the test set forth in Bruen, explains why there is ample historical support for prohibiting dangerous individuals such as Mr. Bullock from possessing firearms. Furthermore, by analyzing the text of the Second Amendment, the methodology outlined in Bruen, and historically analogous regulations, this Note substantiates the applicability of § 922(g)(1) to individuals with violent felony convictions. Considering Mr. Bullock’s multiple gun-related violent felonies, his challenge, and others like it, should not defeat the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1)