3394 research outputs found
Sort by
Bystander Intervention Policies for Campus Sexual Assault Should Be Framed as Civil Rights Programs, and Made Broadly Applicable to All Protected Class Offenses
Get PDFThe overarching goal of any campus sexual assault prevention program should be to reduce incidence rates. BIPs may accomplish this result more effectively than other programs because they engage students to become personally involved in actual incidents, thus directly influencing the way students think and feel about sexual assault. By framing BIPs as civil rights programs applicable to all protected class categories, schools ensure that students understand why intervening is appropriate, and underscores that everyone has a stake in promoting and protecting the safety and full equality of all women and girls on every campus
Essentiality and Standards-Essential Patents
Get PDFAs creatures of policy language, different SDO definitions of essentiality must be given interpretive deference. Nevertheless, as scholarship and case law in this area expands, a number of common themes emerge in the interpretation of essentiality requirements. One such theme is the economic equation of essentiality with non-substitutability that has arisen in the context of patent pools. Another is the blurred divide between commercial and technical essentiality. A third is the practical necessity of assessing essentiality when hundreds of potentially essential patent claims are at issue. These issues, coupled with the recognized phenomenon of over-declaration, suggests that more efficient, rapid and cost-effective methods for assessing essentiality may be called for. Moreover, when strict legal interpretation of policy language is likely to yield absurd results -- as when a patent is deemed non-essential because a theoretically equivalent, but impractically costly, alternative exists -- the norms and expectations of the relevant SDO participants should be taken into account
The Jefferson B. Fordham Digital Collection
No full textThis collection contains the papers and photographs of Jefferson B. Fordham, which were graciously donated to the University of Utah\u27s S.J. Quinney College of Law by his late wife, Rita Ennella Fordham, in 2012.
Jefferson Barnes Fordham, a vocal supporter of individual rights and racial equality, served as dean of the University of Pennsylvania\u27s law school from 1952 until he reached emeritus status in 1970. From 1972 until his retirement, he was a professor of law at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
As a law dean he testified at Congressional hearings and served on public panels, including one that advised President John F. Kennedy on ethics in government and the problems posed by conflicts of interest. He was a strong advocate of individual rights and racial equality. He was a prime mover in 1966 when the American Bar Association created a division on individual rights and responsibilities. It was the first broad-based group within the A.B.A. to focus on civil rights and civil liberties.
In Senate hearings in 1967, Dean Fordham urged a national fair-housing law. It was needed, he declared, because housing -- one\u27s living situation -- conditions access to or availability of other opportunities, notably in education and employment.
Professor Fordham was born in Greensboro, N.C. He was a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of North Carolina, where he also earned his master\u27s degree. He received a law degree in 1930 at Yale University, where he was a member of the Order of Coif. He was in Government service in Washington and private practice in New York in the 1930\u27s, and served in the Pacific as a lieutenant commander in the Navy in World War II.
He held professorships at Louisiana State University, Vanderbilt University and Ohio State University, joining the faculty in Philadelphia as a professor of law in 1952
Tax-Deductible Conservation Easements and the Essential Perpetuity Requirements
Get PDFProperty owners who make charitable gifts of perpetual conservation easements are eligible to claim federal charitable income tax deductions. Through this tax-incentive program the public is investing billions of dollars in easements encumbering millions of acres nationwide. In response to reports of abuse in the early 2000s, the Internal Revenue Service (Service) began auditing and litigating questionable easement donation transactions, and the resulting case law reveals significant failures to comply with the deduction’s requirements. Recently, the Service has come under fire for enforcing the deduction’s “perpetuity” requirements, which are intended to ensure that the easements will protect the subject properties’ conservation values in perpetuity and that the public’s investment in the easements will not be lost. Critics claim that the agency is improperly discouraging easement donations by denying deductions for technical foot faults, and some have called for a change to the law that would allow taxpayers to cure their failures to comply with the perpetuity requirements if they are discovered on audit. This Article illustrates that noncompliance with the perpetuity requirements should not be viewed as technical foot faults. To the contrary, compliance is essential to the integrity of the tax-incentive program and the easements subsidized through the program. In addition, allowing taxpayers to cure failures to comply with the perpetuity requirements if they are discovered on audit would significantly increase noncompliance and abuse and, given the reliance nationwide on deductible easements to accomplish conservation goals, risk fatally undermining an entire generation of conservation efforts. This Article recommends a more prudent approach: the Treasury’s issuance of guidance that would greatly facilitate compliance with the perpetuity requirements, reduce transaction costs for taxpayers, and significantly shore up the integrity of the program
Sex, Drugs, and Eagle Feathers: An Empirical Study of Federal Religious Freedom Cases
Get PDFThis Article presents one of the first empirical studies of federal religious freedom cases since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Hobby Lobby. Critics of Hobby Lobby predicted that it would open the floodgates to a host of novel claims, transforming “religious freedom” from a shield for protecting religious minorities into a sword for imposing Christian values in the areas of abortion, contraception, and gay rights.
Our study finds that this prediction is unsupported. Instead, we find that religious freedom cases remain scarce. Successful cases are even scarcer. Religious minorities remain significantly overrepresented in religious freedom cases; Christians remain significantly underrepresented. And while there was an uptick of litigation over the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate—culminating in Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor— those cases have subsided, and no similar cases have materialized. Courts continue to weed out weak or insincere religious freedom claims; if anything, religious freedom protections are underenforced.
Our study also highlights three important doctrinal developments in religious freedom jurisprudence. The first is a new circuit split over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The second is confusion over the relationship between the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses that is currently plaguing litigation over President Trump’s travel ban. The third is a new path forward for the Supreme Court’s muddled Establishment Clause jurisprudence
Defective Punitive Damage Awards
Get PDFPrivate redress theories of punitive damages recognize an individual victim’s right to be punitive. That right exists because the defendant knew its conduct would probably cause the victim a severe injury, yet the defendant still acted, willfully injuring the victim. The injured victim can seek and obtain punitive damages to punish the defendant for disrespecting her rights.
This Article is the first to apply private redress theories of punitive damages to claims involving a defective product. This application is unexpectedly difficult because of the importance of evidence of harm to nonparties in establishing defect, and because the defendant’s knowledge of the probable injury was not specific to the injured victim but instead general to all potential victims.
Absent special circumstances, the manufacturer disrespected each of the injured victims in the same way. Consistent with private redress theories, each injured plaintiff can seek punishment for that disrespect. But the disrespect is not unique and each injured plaintiff should receive an identical punitive damage award
Development of the Personal Genomics Industry
Get PDFToday, numerous commercial services offer genetic testing, genotyping and genome sequencing services both to medical providers and directly to the public. Twenty-five years ago, such offerings would have been unthinkable, both in terms of cost and medical practice. This chapter describes the development of the personal genomics industry and its evolving business models and goals
TCL v. Ericsson: The First Major U.S. Top-Down FRAND Royalty Decision
Get PDFOn December 21, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California released its long awaited Memorandum of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in TCL Communications v. Ericsson. In a lengthy and carefully crafted decision, Judge James Selna sets forth some important new points regarding the calculation of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalties for standardsessential patents (SEPs). Among other things, the decision offers a strong endorsement of “top down” methodologies for the calculation of SEP royalties, and makes significant use of the non-discrimination (ND) prong of the FRAND commitment in arriving at a FRAND royalty rate. Equally importantly, the case establishes that, for non-discrimination purposes, even low end vendors like TCL will be considered “similarly situated” to high end vendors like Apple, giving them the benefit of the rates that high end vendors can negotiate with SEP holders for far more expensive consumer products
Is Surrogacy Ethically Problematic?
Get PDFThis chapter takes up less well-trodden questions about whether a surrogacy arrangement in which one person carries a pregnancy for another is ethically problematic in itself—and if so, why. Pregnancy and delivery are quintessential bodily labor. One set of arguments tests whether carrying a pregnancy is the type of bodily labor one person ethically may perform for another, whether or not for pay. These arguments contend that surrogacy cannot be a permissible service, no matter how well intended or structured. Another set of questions probes the value and identity of the child, asking whether surrogacy is inevitably akin to baby selling or, if not, devalues the child in some other way. A final set of related questions attends to whether surrogacy properly respects the relationship between the pregnant woman and the child-to-be. The general strategy of the argument is to show that we cannot reject all surrogacy on any of these grounds without also rejecting other practices that we find acceptable. The conclusion is that although there are serious ethical issues about surrogacy arrangements, they can be allayed by how these arrangements are structured and are far outweighed by the interests of infertile individuals or couples in becoming parents
Little Streams and Legal Transformations
Get PDFIn 1972, Congress passed a statute whose text offered sweeping protection for waterways across the nation. In theory, those protections extended to little streams. Actual practices were different, not just in the 1970s but also well into the 1990s. But over the past twenty years, small streams have become a central focus of regulatory protection, with the extent and type of those protections continuing to evolve to this day, and with additional changes still possible. The future of that evolution is uncertain, and it may hang in the balance; Congress, the incoming administration, or the courts could nip much of this progress in the bud. But so long as it lasts, the story of little streams illustrates the continuing ability of environmental law to evolve and change, and the incremental—and often unnoticed—ways in which those changes occur