Mississippi College School of Law
Not a member yet
1198 research outputs found
Sort by
CalPERS v. ANZ Securities: Securities Time Bars
Full text linkStatutes of limitations and statutes of repose are critical mechanisms that help to limit liability in civil actions. In many instances, these two time bars are paired together in order to protect a defendant from an interminable threat of liability. Although these time limits are present in many types of statutes, they are especially important in statutes involving securities offerings because of the need to protect financial security. In the Securities Act of 1933 ( Securities Act ), there are two time bars, a statute of limitations and a statute of repose, which attempt to protect potential defendants from liability regarding the distribution of securities. The longer of these two time limits seeks to provide financial stability in fast-changing markets by reducing the open period for potential liability. In order for defendants to be protected by this longer time limit, the moment at which the potential liability ends must be unambiguous in order to protect defendants from potential liability. This Note will analyze the Supreme Court of the United States\u27 holding in California Public Employees\u27 Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc. in relation to the three-year time bar in the Securities Act. In this case, the Court held that the three-year time bar was a statute of repose, as opposed to a statute of limitations, therefore making petitioner\u27s timely untimely filing of its individual action grounds for dismissal
Trick or Treat?: Mississippi County Doesn\u27t Clown Around With Halloween Costumes
Full text linkIn a poll conducted by Vox and Morning Consult, forty-two percent of Amreicans admitted to fearing clowns. That\u27s a higher percentage than those who fear a terrorist attack (forty-one percent), a family member dying (thirty-eight percent), or an economic collapse (thirty-seven percent). Further, this is significantly more than those with classic fears such as heights (twenty-four percent), needles (seventeen percent), or ghosts (nine percent). The survey also revealed that two-thirds of Americans wanted law enforcement officials or government agencies to stop clowns.
Across the country, government officials reacted to concerned constituents\u27 fears by banning clown costumes in certain situations. The police chief of Greenville, the city where the clowns were first spotted, advised he would arrest anyone dressed as a clown trying to even politely terrorize the public. Superintendents in New Jersey, Colorado, and Pennsylvania prohibited the costumes in their respective school districts. North Carolina\u27s Belmont Boo Festival advertised on its posters, No adult clown costumes will be allowed at this event!
Moreover, in a sweeping declaration, Kemper County, Mississippi officials passed an ordinance outlawing clown costumes and masks until after Halloween
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. V. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County: An Exploration of the Arises Out Of Prong in Personal Jurisdiction
Full text linkThe concept of personal jurisdiction in its modern context has existed since the early 1900s. In time, courts have vetted the idea that an individual, company, or legal entity may be brought under the jurisdiction of a state or federal court by reason of its particular contacts with the jurisdiction. In its creation, the Supreme Court of the United States added the requirement that the contact must arise out of or relate to the forum state. But dismally, the Court has provided very little on how to apply and operate the arise out of prong. As a result, both federal and state courts struggle to practically apply this doctrine and in turn, a variety of confusing and conflicting tests have been created.
In attempting to clarify the meaning of the arises out of prong, the United States Supreme Court recently considered the jurisdictional dilemma of Bristol-Myers Squibb ( BMS ), a large company that was nearly brought under the purview of a California state court. Unfortunately, in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, the Supreme Court has failed to rectify the confusion.
This Note examines the law surrounding BMS\u27s victory
It\u27s Not My Fault! : Inequality Among Posthumously Conceived Children and Why Limiting the Degree of Benefits To Innocent Babies Is a Big No-No!
Full text linkGirl meets boy. Boy likes girl. Girl and boy decide to get married. Like most young adults, the boy and girl dream of having children. But what if the possibility of having children came with a price? Many situations arise that can either foster or hinder a young couple’s ability to start a family. For example, suppose Fitz and Marie got married in 2010. Three years later, unexpectedly and to the devastation of both Fitz and Marie, Fitz is diagnosed with cancer causing the young couple to put their plans for a family on hold. Told that a side effect of chemotherapy and radiation treatment is infertility, the couple decides to utilize a sperm bank to freeze Fitz’s sperm. In the event that Fitz could overcome cancer, the frozen sperm could give the couple the opportunity to have the family they always wanted. Sadly, Fitz dies six months later. Still desiring a child, Marie, through assisted reproductive technologies (“ART”), uses Fitz’s frozen sperm to become pregnant with a baby boy. Should this baby, who was conceived after the death of his father, have less of a right to inherit benefits from Fitz’s estate just because Fitz died before he was born? The answer to that question is “it depends,” and the outcome will be determined by what state Fitz and Marie resided in at the time of Fitz’s death
