for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords
  Subjects -> LAW (Total: 1232 journals)
    - CIVIL LAW (37 journals)
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (44 journals)
    - CORPORATE LAW (81 journals)
    - CRIMINAL LAW (19 journals)
    - FAMILY AND MATRIMONIAL LAW (21 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL LAW (163 journals)
    - JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (22 journals)
    - LAW (700 journals)
    - LAW: GENERAL (7 journals)

LAW (700 journals)                  1 2 3 4 | Last

Showing 1 - 200 of 354 Journals sorted alphabetically
ABA Journal Magazine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 19)
Acta Juridica     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
Acta Politica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Acta Universitatis Danubius. Juridica     Open Access  
Actualidad Jurídica Ambiental     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Adelaide Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 19)
Administrative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 38)
Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
African Journal of Legal Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
African Journal on Conflict Resolution     Open Access   (Followers: 15)
Afrilex     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Air and Space Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 19)
Akron Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Alaska Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Albany Law Review     Free   (Followers: 6)
Alberta Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Alternative Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Alternatives : Global, Local, Political     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
Amazon's Research and Environmental Law     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
American Journal of Comparative Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 53)
American Journal of Jurisprudence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15)
American Journal of Law & Medicine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 12)
American Journal of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
American Journal of Trial Advocacy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
American University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 15)
American University National Security Law Brief     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Amicus Curiae     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Amsterdam Law Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Annales Canonici     Open Access  
Annual Survey of South African Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Anuario de Psicología Jurídica     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
ANZSLA Commentator, The     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Appeal : Review of Current Law and Law Reform     Open Access  
Arbitration Law Monthly     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Arbitration Law Reports and Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Arctic Review on Law and Politics     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arena Hukum     Open Access  
Argumenta Journal Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arizona Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Arizona State Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 2)
Arkansas Law Review     Free   (Followers: 5)
Ars Aequi Maandblad     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Art + Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11)
Article 40     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Artificial Intelligence and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Asian American Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Asian Journal of Legal Education     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
Asian Pacific American Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Asy-Syir'ah : Jurnal Ilmu Syari'ah dan Hukum     Open Access  
Australasian Law Management Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
Australian Feminist Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Australian Indigenous Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
Australian Journal of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 19)
Ave Maria Law Review     Free   (Followers: 2)
Badamai Law Journal     Open Access  
Ballot     Open Access  
Baltic Journal of Law & Politics     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Bar News: The Journal of the NSW Bar Association     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Behavioral Sciences & the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23)
Beijing Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Berkeley Journal of Entertainment and Sports Law     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Berkeley Technology Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 11)
Bioethics Research Notes     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Bond Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 17)
Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Boston College Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 17)
Boston University Law Review     Free   (Followers: 10)
BRICS Law Journal     Open Access  
Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Brigham Young University Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
British Journal of American Legal Studies     Open Access  
Brooklyn Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
C@hiers du CRHIDI     Open Access  
Cadernos de Dereito Actual     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Cadernos do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito - PPGDir./UFRGS     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário     Open Access  
Cahiers, Droit, Sciences et Technologies     Open Access  
California Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 19)
California Lawyer     Free  
California Western Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Cambridge Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 138)
Campbell Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Campus Legal Advisor     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Case Western Reserve Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi     Open Access  
Časopis zdravotnického práva a bioetiky     Open Access  
Catalyst : A Social Justice Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Catholic University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Chicago-Kent Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Chicana/o-Latina/o Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
China : An International Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
China-EU Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Chinese Journal of Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Chinese Law & Government     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
Cleveland State Law Review     Free   (Followers: 1)
College Athletics and The Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Colombia Forense     Open Access  
Columbia Journal of Environmental Law     Free   (Followers: 10)
Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Columbia Law Review (Sidebar)     Open Access   (Followers: 14)
Commercial Law Quarterly: The Journal of the Commercial Law Association of Australia     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Comparative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 39)
Comparative Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Con-texto     Open Access  
Conflict Resolution Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20)
Conflict Trends     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
Cornell Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Criterio Jurídico     Open Access  
Critical Analysis of Law : An International & Interdisciplinary Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Cuadernos de Historia del Derecho     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Cuestiones Juridicas     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Current Legal Problems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
Danube : The Journal of European Association Comenius - EACO     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
De Jure     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
De Rebus     Full-text available via subscription  
Deakin Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Defense Counsel Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Democrazia e diritto     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Denning Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
DePaul Journal of Women, Gender and the Law     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
DePaul Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Der Staat     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 13)
Derecho PUCP     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Derecho y Ciencias Sociales     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Die Verwaltung     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 10)
Dikaion     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Dike     Open Access  
Direito e Desenvolvimento     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Direito e Liberdade     Open Access  
Diritto penale contemporaneo     Free   (Followers: 2)
Diritto, immigrazione e cittadinanza     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Dixi     Open Access  
Droit et Cultures     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Droit et Médecine Bucco-Dentaire     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Droit, Déontologie & Soin     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Drug Science, Policy and Law     Full-text available via subscription  
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Duke Forum for Law & Social Change     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 15)
Duke Law & Technology Review     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Duke Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 25)
DULR Online     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
East Asia Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
ECI Interdisciplinary Journal for Legal and Social Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Ecology Law Quarterly     Free   (Followers: 3)
Edinburgh Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20)
Education and the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
El Cotidiano     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Election Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22)
Energy Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Environmental Justice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Environmental Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 23)
Environmental Policy and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
ERA-Forum     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Espaço Jurídico : Journal of Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
ESR Review : Economic and Social Rights in South Africa     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Ethnopolitics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Ethos: Official Publication of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
EU agrarian Law     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Europaisches Journal fur Minderheitenfragen     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
European Energy and Environmental Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
European Journal for Education Law and Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
European Journal of Law and Technology     Open Access   (Followers: 15)
European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
European Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 126)
European Public Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 33)
European Review of Contract Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21)
European Review of Private Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 29)
European Yearbook of Minority Issues Online     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Evaluation Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Evidence & Policy : A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
Faulkner Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Federal Communication Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Federal Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 20)
Federal Probation     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Feminist Legal Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
feminists@law     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Fiat Justisia     Open Access  
First Amendment Studies     Hybrid Journal  
Florida Bar News     Free  
Florida Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Florida State University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Fordham Environmental Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 19)
Fordham Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 13)
FORO. Revista de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales, Nueva Época     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Fundamina : A Journal of Legal History     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Geoforum     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22)
George Washington Law Review     Free   (Followers: 7)
Georgia Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Georgia State University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Global Journal of Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Global Labour Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Golden Gate University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)

        1 2 3 4 | Last

Journal Cover Boston College Law Review
  [17 followers]  Follow
  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
   ISSN (Print) 0161-6587
   Published by Boston College Homepage  [8 journals]
  • Marijuana Legalization and Nosy Neighbor States

    • Authors: Alex Kreit
      Abstract: As more states proceed with marijuana legalization laws, questions have arisen about how to accommodate those states that wish to retain prohibition. For instance, in 2014, Oklahoma and Nebraska unsuccessfully sued Colorado based on the spillover effects that Colorado’s marijuana legalization law had on its neighboring states. This article asserts that there are several reasons why state marijuana legalization laws are unlikely to have a large effect on neighboring states. First, marijuana is not a previously unobtainable good being introduced into the stream of commerce, as it is already available through the black market inexpensively. Second, legalization laws have a number of restrictions that make it very difficult for sellers to profit from exporting legally produced marijuana across state lines. Prohibition states may have reason to worry, however, that illegal marijuana growers will be better able to hide their operations in legalization states that allow residents to grow small amounts of marijuana for personal use, which in turn may increase illegal marijuana exports to neighboring prohibition states. Prohibition states can minimize this risk of increased marijuana flow by lobbying the federal government to establish rules that protect their interests.
      PubDate: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:27:55 PDT
  • Marijuana, State Extraterritoriality, and Congress

    • Authors: Mark D. Rosen
      Abstract: The Trump administration inherits the Obama administration’s policy of under-enforcing federal marijuana laws and a nation with a patchwork of divergent state laws. Although allowing diversity and experimentation, such divergence may impose spillover costs to some states. Some states may attempt to address these costs by exercising extraterritorial regulatory powers on their citizens. Although it is unclear and a matter of dispute whether and to what extent states have such extraterritorial authority, this Article shows that it is certain that Congress has power to set the bounds of state extraterritorial regulation, subject to only limited constitutional restraints. The Article then explores several surprising implications of this congressional power. It argues that although Congress would set state extraterritorial powers by means of legislation, most of the considerations informing that legislation would belong to the constitutional domain, not the domain of mere politics. Relying on another work by the author that argues that Congress ought to be governed by Special Norms when it engages in constitutional decisionmaking, this Article shows how such Special Norms would operate in relation to Congress’s determination of state extraterritorial powers.
      PubDate: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:27:51 PDT
  • Budding Conflicts: Marijuana's Impact on Unsettled Questions of
           Tribal-State Relations

    • Authors: Katherine J. Florey
      Abstract: In the wake of a December 2014 decision by the Department of Justice to deprioritize enforcement of federal marijuana laws against tribes as well as states, many tribes have reevaluated their policies toward marijuana. Tribal attitudes toward marijuana are diverse; some tribes regard marijuana as a public health menace, whereas others see it as a source of economic opportunity. Where tribal policies are significantly more or less restrictive than those of the surrounding state, tribal-state relations have often suffered friction. The problem is particularly acute given the jurisdictional uncertainty that characterizes Indian country and the absence of any equivalent to the conflict-mediating doctrines that help to smooth interstate relations. As a result, federal intervention may be needed to protect tribal sovereignty and resolve tribal-state conflict; any such action should be guided by recognizing the successes and failures of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
      PubDate: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:27:47 PDT
  • One Toke Too Far: The Demise of the Dormant Commerce Clause's
           Extraterritoriality Doctrine Threatens the Marijuana-Legalization

    • Authors: Chad DeVeaux
      Abstract: This Article argues that the pending feuds between neighboring states over marijuana decriminalization demonstrate the need for a strict doctrine limiting a state’s regulatory authority to its own borders. Precedent recognizes that the dormant Commerce Clause (“DCC”) “precludes the application of a state statute to commerce that takes place wholly outside the State’s borders, whether or not the commerce has effects within the State.” This prohibition protects “the autonomy of the individual States within their respective spheres” by dictating that “[n]o state has the authority to tell other polities what laws they must enact or how affairs must be conducted.” But this principle was called into doubt in July 2015 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in an opinion by Judge (now Justice) Neil Gorsuch, which concluded that this “most dormant doctrine in [DCC] jurisprudence” had withered and died from nonuse. The Tenth Circuit’s conclusion, which approved Colorado’s purported direct regulation of coal-fired power generation in Nebraska, ironically coincided with Nebraska’s attempt to enjoin Colorado’s pot-friendly laws. Nebraska contends that Colorado’s commercial pot market allows marijuana to “flow . . . into [Nebraska], undermining [its] own marijuana ban[], draining [its] treasur[y], and placing stress on [its] criminal justice system[].” While Colorado celebrated its newfound power to impose its legislative judgments on Nebraskans, the festivities might be short-lived. Colorado failed to recognize the impact the extraterritorial doctrine’s apparent demise may have on its own marijuana-legalization experiment. If Colorado is empowered to regulate coal burning in Nebraska because of its effects in Colorado, what prevents Nebraska from projecting its own laws across the border to regulate Colorado marijuana transactions that affect a substantial number of Nebraskans'
      PubDate: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:27:43 PDT
  • Policy, Preemption, and Pot: Extra-Territorial Citizen Jurisdiction

    • Authors: Gabriel J. Chin
      Abstract: In contemporary America, legislators send messages about values through symbolic legislation and lawsuits. One conflict is between states where marijuana is legal and others that continue to ban it. This Article evaluates what might happen if anti-marijuana states made it illegal for their citizens to purchase or use marijuana, borrowing a page from the playbook of activists opposed to reproductive choice who propose that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, individuals could be prohibited from traveling to another state for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. Although such laws would be hard to enforce, they still present important questions of state authority. The Supreme Court has recognized state jurisdiction over citizens and over state territory. If, say, Alabama prohibited gambling in its territory, or by its citizens anywhere in the world, while Nevada’s public policy was to allow gambling in its territory, a difficult conflict would be presented. However, the marijuana controversy does not present the same problem. Federal law categorically prohibits possession, use, and distribution of marijuana. In order to hold that state marijuana laws are not preempted by the federal ban, courts have found that the states do not have a public policy in favor of marijuana, they merely decline to prohibit it. As a result, the policies of the anti-marijuana states do not conflict with the interests of other states in the way that states opposed to abortion or gambling might conflict with states affirmatively allowing those activities. Although the law in this area is not particularly developed, making reliable prediction difficult, a state’s national ban on marijuana seems much more likely to pass muster than would a ban on activities affirmatively promoted by another state.
      PubDate: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:27:40 PDT
  • A General Theory of Preemption: With Comments on State Decriminalization
           of Marijuana

    • Authors: Lea Brilmayer
      Abstract: Marijuana decriminalization is a hotly debated topic, which has nonetheless seen popular support in recent years. Current federal law (the Controlled Substances Act) conflicts with many state decriminalization efforts, raising the obvious question of federal preemption. The Supreme Court has failed to provide a clear answer on how much federal law preempts state marijuana decriminalization laws. This Article identifies the foundational principles of vertical and horizontal preemption, as well as various unanswered questions regarding these doctrines. It then applies these questions to marijuana decriminalization. Ultimately, it argues that there is a weak case for vertical or horizontal preemption in the marijuana decriminalization context.
      PubDate: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:27:36 PDT
  • Reefer Madness: How Non-Legalizing States Can Revamp Dram Shop Laws to
           Protect Themselves from Marijuana Spillover from Their Legalizing

    • Authors: Jessica Berch
      Abstract: Reefer madness is sweeping the nation. Despite a federal ban on marijuana, states have begun to legalize medical and, increasingly, recreational use of the drug. As more states legalize marijuana, their non-legalizing neighbors have seen a distinct uptick in marijuana possession and use—and an attendant increase in crime and accidents. In December 2014, Nebraska and Oklahoma, non-legalizing states that border Colorado, a trail-blazer in the full-legalization movement, requested permission to file suit in the U.S. Supreme Court over their neighbor’s lax marijuana controls, which allow cannabis to come into their states. The Supreme Court denied leave to file. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the question remains: What can prohibiting states do to protect themselves from cross-boundary spillover' This Article surveys various litigation—and statutory—options and ultimately determines that prohibiting states should, at a minimum, consider enacting laws modeled on Dram Shop Acts, which create liability against those who sell alcohol to already intoxicated people or minors who then injure third-party victims. These revamped “Gram Shop Acts” would create liability against out-of-state marijuana dispensaries that sell to Home State buyers who, while high, injure third parties in the Home State or those who are residents of the Home State. Gram Shop Acts may help prohibiting states shift some of the costs of marijuana legalization back to those states that foster its use by deterring sales to citizens residing in non-legalizing states and by providing compensation to third-party victims.
      PubDate: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:27:32 PDT
  • Introduction: Marijuana Laws and Federalism

    • Authors: Erwin Chemerinsky
      PubDate: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:27:28 PDT
  • Deference to the Agency Is the Best Policy: The D.C. Circuit Applies
           Chevron in Denying Additional Medicare Reimbursements to Provider
           Hospitals in Washington Regional Medicorp

    • Authors: Brandon Curtin
      Abstract: On December 29, 2015, in Washington Regional Medicorp v. Burwell, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) correctly interpreted the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (“TEFRA”) in calculating Medicare reimbursements for a provider hospital based on the capped target amount from the previous year. In agreeing with the Secretary, the D.C. Circuit joined the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Sixth Circuits in holding that the statute and its implementing regulations supported the Secretary. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in contrast, has held that the regulations unambiguously compel the contrary conclusion, namely, that the Secretary should base her calculation on a hospital-specific target amount. This Comment argues that the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of TEFRA is the right one. It correctly applies the Chevron analysis, deferring to HHS, while also noting that HHS’s reading is the best one. In doing so, the D.C. Circuit also fulfills the congressional intent to transfer hospitals from a system of hospital-specific reimbursements to a decidedly more objective system of reimbursements.
      PubDate: Thu, 04 May 2017 13:38:21 PDT
  • Rosenfield v. GlobalTranz: Is the Manager Rule Dead? The Ninth Circuit
           Holds That Fair Notice Is the Appropriate Test for Whether a Managerial
           Employee's Activity Is Protected Under the FLSA

    • Authors: Alyssa Fixsen
      Abstract: On December 14, 2015, in Rosenfield v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the proper test for when an employee’s actions constituted a protected complaint under the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”) was whether the employer had fair notice that the actions were a complaint. In holding that the employee’s managerial status did not change the analytical framework, the Ninth Circuit diverged from previous rulings in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits that required managerial employees to assert adverse action against their employers to receive anti-retaliation protection. This Comment argues that the Ninth Circuit’s use of a single test for both managerial and non-managerial employees is correct in that it allows for more robust enforcement of the FLSA, and is thus in keeping with Congress’ objective in passing the FLSA.
      PubDate: Thu, 04 May 2017 13:38:18 PDT
  • Circumstances Requiring Safeguards: Limitations on the Application of the
           Categorical Approach in Hernandez-Zavala v. Lynch

    • Authors: Kelly Morgan
      Abstract: On November 20, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Hernandez-Zavala v. Lynch held that adjudicators deciding whether a noncitizen has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) must apply the circumstance-specific approach to the statute’s domestic relationship requirement. In so doing, the Fourth Circuit carved out an exception to the more protective categorical and modified categorical approaches, which limit the evidence that may be admitted to determine whether a conviction triggers immigration consequences. This Comment argues that the Fourth Circuit erred in extending the circumstance-specific approach to crimes of domestic violence under the Immigration and Nationality Act, given the unique historical legacy of the categorical approach in immigration proceedings and the procedural disadvantages to which noncitizens in removal proceedings are subjected.
      PubDate: Thu, 04 May 2017 13:38:15 PDT
  • Who Needs to Know? The Seventh Circuit Accepts Information Sent to
           Government as Publicly Disclosed in Cause of Action v. Chicago Transit

    • Authors: Kurtis Brown
      Abstract: On February 29, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Cause of Action v. Chicago Transit Authority held that information disclosed to a government official and acted upon by that official has been publicly disclosed, barring a qui tam action from being brought under the False Claims Act. Several other circuits, including the First, Fourth, and Sixth, in contrast, have all interpreted the public disclosure bar within the False Claims Act to require a disclosure of information beyond the government. This Comment argues that the majority of circuit courts have correctly interpreted the False Claims Act. Barring qui tam actions when the government is in possession of information is in line with the now abolished government knowledge bar. Congress’s 1986 amendment to the False Claims Act intended to allow meritorious qui tam actions and allow citizens to ensure the government holds those who commit fraud against it accountable.
      PubDate: Thu, 04 May 2017 13:38:12 PDT
  • Good Things Don't Come to Those Forced to Wait: Denial of a
           Litigant's Request to Proceed Anonymously Can Be Appealed Prior to
           Final Judgment in the Wake of Doe v. Village of Deerfield

    • Authors: Chloe Booth
      Abstract: On April 12, 2016, in Doe v. Village of Deerfield, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a denial of a motion to proceed anonymously is an immediately appealable order under the collateral order doctrine. The Seventh Circuit joined the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits in holding that this type of order, examined categorically, satisfies the rigorous requirements of the collateral order doctrine. Allowing immediate review of this type of order implements a practical construction of the traditional final judgment rule that the United States Courts of Appeals can only review orders upon entry of a final judgment on the merits of a case from a United States District Court. This Comment argues that the Seventh Circuit correctly decided to join the other circuits’ decisions to allow for the immediate appeal of a denial of a motion to proceed anonymously. To rule otherwise would result in a party’s loss of a right that would be irremediable upon final appellate review. Additionally, the decision is likely to have an effect on the proliferation of cases dealing with the First Amendment’s free speech protections and anonymous speech on the Internet.
      PubDate: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 08:08:50 PDT
  • Creating Confusion Rather Than Clarity: The Sixth Circuit's (Lack of)
           Decision in Tree of Life Christian Schools v. Upper Arlington

    • Authors: Lindsey Edinger
      Abstract: There is currently a split among five federal circuits as to what constitutes a secular comparator to a religious assembly or institution under the equal terms provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Stemming from this initial split, courts have further divided as to what is necessary to establish a prima facie case for an equal terms claim. On May 18, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Tree of Life Christian Schools v. Upper Arlington became the most recent circuit to address the equal terms provision. Rather than providing a clear articulation of the equal terms provision, however, the Sixth Circuit refused to officially adopt a position regarding the circuit split. This Comment argues that in abstaining from formally expressing a legal standard for determining violations of the equal terms provision, the Sixth Circuit shirked its appellate duty to create clarity and encourage uniformity.
      PubDate: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 08:08:46 PDT
  • Third Circuit Confirms the Class Arbitration "Clear and Unmistakable"
           Standard in Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC v. Scout Petroleum, LLC, Dealing a
           Blow to Consumers and Employees

    • Authors: Caitlin Toto
      Abstract: Whether class action is available in an arbitration proceeding is a highly controversial topic with implications for all parties bound by such clauses. Due to the high stakes of class action arbitrability, it is essential that a neutral decisionmaker determine this question. Whether this decisionmaker is the court or the arbitrator, however, is contested and unresolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Although undetermined by our highest court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has addressed this question. In Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC v. Scout Petroleum, LLC, the Third Circuit affirmed that the availability of class arbitration is a question for the courts, unless there is clear and unmistakable language within the arbitration clause delegating such a power to the arbitrators. Further, the court held that an incorporation of the American Arbitration Association rules is not a clear and unmistakable delegation. Although this opinion incentivizes contract clarity, it also ignores the uneven bargaining power and divergent interests between parties in modern mandatory arbitration agreements, handing a windfall victory for corporations.
      PubDate: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 08:08:43 PDT
  • Weaponizing Citizen Suits: Second Circuit Revises the Burden of Proof for
           Proving Sham Citizen Petitions in Apotex v. Acorda Therapeutics

    • Authors: Franklin Liu
      Abstract: In 2016, in Apotex Inc. v. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a generic drug company could not rely solely on the timing of the Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA’s”) disposition of a citizen suit and approval of a generic application to state a claim under the Sherman Act based on sham litigation. By contrast, in 2009, in In re DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, the Second Circuit held that precisely such evidence was sufficient to state a Sherman Act claim. This Comment argues that the Second Circuit’s revision of the burden of proof for showing a sham citizen suit incentivizes brand-name drug companies to file sham citizen suits as a means to extend their monopolies, which would harm both generic drug manufacturers and the American public. Given the competitive and public health ramifications associated with regulating prescription drugs, it is crucial that U.S. courts give sufficient weight to the underlying policies behind consumer-protection statutes such as the Hatch-Waxman Act and the Sherman Act in order to avoid unintentionally harming the public.
      PubDate: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 08:08:39 PDT
  • The Role of Antitrust Principles in Patent Monopolies: The Third Circuit
           Applies Antitrust Scrutiny to No-AG Patent Settlements in Smithkline

    • Authors: Meghan Fay
      Abstract: On June 26, 2015, in King Drug Co. of Florence v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that no-authorized generic agreements (“no-AG agreements”), in which a pioneer pharmaceutical manufacturer agrees not to introduce a generic drug, are subject to antitrust scrutiny under the Sherman Act. This Comment argues that the Third Circuit correctly extended the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis to non-cash settlement agreements. In Actavis, the Court held that a “reverse-payment settlement,” which compensates a generic manufacturer to delay market entry, creates monopolistic consequences and is subject to antitrust scrutiny. To rule otherwise would deter manufacturers from introducing generic drugs into the pharmaceutical market and, consequently, restrict the amount of lower cost generic drugs available to consumers.
      PubDate: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 08:08:35 PDT
  • Discriminatory Intent and Implicit Bias: Title VII Liability for Unwitting

    • Authors: Amelia M. Wirts
      Abstract: Studies consistently show that African Americans face more employment scrutiny and negative employment actions than their white coworkers. Recognizing that much of the explicit racism of the twentieth century has given way to subtle and often unconscious discriminatory biases, this Note argues that current Title VII jurisprudence contains the tools and legal distinctions to provide legal redress for this implicit bias. Discriminatory intent, a requisite showing for plaintiffs bringing Title VII disparate treatment claims, should not be understood to require proof of a particular mental state. Instead, the current law should—and could—simply require that plaintiffs demonstrate a causal link between their membership in a protected class and the adverse employment action that they suffered. Discriminatory actions by employers produce costs for society at large and for individual workers. Employers must therefore pay for the harms they cause, even if the employer did so because of implicit biases. Without employer liability for implicit bias and its discriminatory effects, this Note argues that barriers to equal employment opportunities will persist and victims of discrimination will bear the costs of unfair decisions made by employers.
      PubDate: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 12:36:11 PDT
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
Home (Search)
Subjects A-Z
Publishers A-Z
Your IP address:
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-2016