Mississippi College School of Law
Not a member yet
1198 research outputs found
Sort by
The Unbargained-for-Exchange in Copyright
Full text linkCopyright law in the United States is more than the letter C in a circle. The visual impression of someone clutching a book prevails in many minds. The use of the phrase it\u27s copyrighted has become common. Many people consider a copyright to be property. The true story of copyright law is so steeped in history - a great deal from England - that it makes even Betty White seem middle aged. This Article examines some of that history and compares mistaken connotations about property within the realm of contract law - a better association
On the Nature of Regulating Medication Abortion: A Post-Dobbs Analysis on the Legality of Emerging Efforts to Ban Federally Approved Mifepristone
No full textThe Truth About FIBS (Financial Institution Bonds) in Mississippi: When Express Terms Conflict With Statutory Requirements
Full text linkIn Mississippi, Financial Institution Bonds (FIBs) are statutorily-required financial instruments that cover officers or employees of a bank (or other financial institution) to protect financial institutions against losses caused by matters such as dishonesty; forgery; fraud; kidnapping, ransom, or extortion; and counterfeiting. State statutes set forth the terms that are to be included in the FIB, but standard forms are promulgated by the Surety Association of America (SAA) or on special forms drafted by the surety.
A problem can arise if the terms on the executed bond form do not coincide with the requirements of the state statute
Unraveling a Ball of Confusion: Layers of Criminal Intent, Facebook, Rap, and Uncertainty in Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015)
Full text link“So, round and around and around we go. Where the world\u27s heading nobody knows...Just a ball of confusion.
Elonis v. United States was a much-awaited case needed to clarify many questions within its realm. Part of the case\u27s allure was its facts: threats, rap, and Facebook. While the alluring circumstances were well-presented, the potential for clarification was not realized. As the quotes from the various opinions above suggest, a song from the oldies had hinted at this ruling correctly when its lyrics said it\u27s just a ball of confusion. This Note seeks to unravel this ball of confusion to give, as one Justice urged, some certainty and direction for future courts and ordinary Facebook users
It Takes a Village, Not a Schoolhouse: The Deprival of Parents & Students\u27 Rights to Privacy & Expression in Context of Bell v. Itawamba
Full text linkThe notion that it takes a village to raise a child is a proverbial adage that still maintains the same, if not greater, relevance today. This simply means the successful upbringing of a child depends not only on the parents, but also on the child\u27s village, which consists of trusted members of the community, extended family, friends of the family, and other mentors. As the child transitions into adulthood, there is an expectation among the village members that the child will use the lessons he or she learns about life and its responsibilities to honor the village accordingly. Some of the sacred responsibilities entrusted to the child include being selfless, defending the defenseless, and holding firm to moral beliefs. Notably absent from the list of individuals comprising the village are public school administrators, some of whom far too often do not have the students\u27 best interests in mind in fulfilling their administrative duties. Moreover, the schools\u27 views may sometimes be in direct conflict with parental and village expectations.
This Note will explore the dissension among school districts, parents, and courts regarding the extent of schools\u27 authority to discipline students for off-campus activity, especially when that authority is in direct conflict with the role of the village. Due to the advent of social media (and the Internet in general), the line between parental and village influence versus social control is becoming increasingly difficult to establish
Off the Marques: An Exploration of Arbitrariness in Immigration Law Through Marques v. Lynch
Full text linkRonaldo de Lima Marques appeared to hit the jackpot. He paid a United States citizen to marry him, submitted immigration paperwork on the basis of that fraudulent marriage, and waited. His goal: become a permanent resident of the United States; stay in the country as long as he pleased; perhaps become a U.S. citizen. He succeeded. On September 9, 2006, Mr. Marques received authority from the United States government to make this country his permanent home. He did it. He hoodwinked the system.
His days of peace, however, were limited. Despite an initial failure to detect his sham marriage, the Department of Homeland Security did not remain fooled. Federal authorities uncovered a scheme in which Marques\u27 fake marriage was one of many. They sought to remove him from the United States - yet failed. Taking cover in an apparent gap in immigration law, Marques defeated his deportation order before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The first time, the functionality and effectiveness of the system had failed; this time, it appeared the law itself had failed. An alien committed marriage fraud yet avoided deportation even after being discovered and subjected to removal proceedings.
This Note will examine the law surrounding Marques\u27s surprising victory. It will introduce the reader to key concepts within immigration law including the process by which an alien becomes a permanent legal resident