for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords
help
  Subjects -> LAW (Total: 1250 journals)
    - CIVIL LAW (37 journals)
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (44 journals)
    - CORPORATE LAW (82 journals)
    - CRIMINAL LAW (20 journals)
    - CRIMINOLOGY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (139 journals)
    - FAMILY AND MATRIMONIAL LAW (21 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL LAW (165 journals)
    - JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (22 journals)
    - LAW (713 journals)
    - LAW: GENERAL (7 journals)

LAW (713 journals)                  1 2 3 4 | Last

Showing 1 - 200 of 354 Journals sorted alphabetically
ABA Journal Magazine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 20)
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: 20)
Administrative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 40)
Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
African Journal of Legal Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
African Journal on Conflict Resolution     Open Access   (Followers: 17)
Afrilex     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Air and Space Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 20)
Akron Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Alaska Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Albany Law Review     Free   (Followers: 6)
Alberta Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 15)
Alternative Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Alternatives : Global, Local, Political     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
Amazon's Research and Environmental Law     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
American Journal of Comparative Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 56)
American Journal of Jurisprudence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17)
American Journal of Law & Medicine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 13)
American Journal of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
American Journal of Trial Advocacy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
American University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 16)
American University National Security Law Brief     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Amicus Curiae     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Amsterdam Law Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez     Open Access  
Annales Canonici     Open Access  
Annual Survey of South African Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Anuario da Facultade de Dereito da Universidade da Coruña     Open Access  
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   (Followers: 1)
Arbitration Law Monthly     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Arbitration Law Reports and Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
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: 4)
Arizona State Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 2)
Arkansas Law Review     Free   (Followers: 6)
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: 10)
Asian American Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Asian Journal of Legal Education     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
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: 17)
Australian Journal of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 18)
Ave Maria Law Review     Free   (Followers: 3)
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: 24)
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: 18)
Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Boston College Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 18)
Boston University Law Review     Free   (Followers: 11)
BRICS Law Journal     Open Access  
Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Brigham Young University Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
British Journal of American Legal Studies     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Brooklyn Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Bulletin of Legal Medicine     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
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: 20)
California Lawyer     Free  
California Western Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Cambridge Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 150)
Campbell Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Campus Legal Advisor     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Case Western Reserve Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
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: 3)
Chicago-Kent Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
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: 2)
College Athletics and The Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Colombia Forense     Open Access  
Columbia Journal of Environmental Law     Free   (Followers: 9)
Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
Columbia Law Review (Sidebar)     Open Access   (Followers: 16)
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: 42)
Comparative Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Con-texto     Open Access  
Conflict Resolution Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
Conflict Trends     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
Cornell Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Criterio Jurídico     Open Access  
Critical Analysis of Law : An International & Interdisciplinary Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Cuadernos de Historia del Derecho     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Cuestiones Juridicas     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Current Legal Problems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26)
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   (Followers: 1)
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: 2)
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: 3)
Der Staat     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 13)
Derecho PUCP     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
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: 7)
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: 8)
Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 16)
Duke Law & Technology Review     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Duke Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 26)
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: 21)
Education and the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
El Cotidiano     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Election Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23)
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: 22)
Environmental Policy and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15)
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: 5)
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: 142)
European Public Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 35)
European Review of Contract Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22)
European Review of Private Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 30)
European Yearbook of Minority Issues Online     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
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: 22)
Federal Probation     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Feminist Legal Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
feminists@law     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Fiat Justisia     Open Access  
First Amendment Studies     Hybrid Journal  
Florida Bar News     Free  
Florida Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Florida State University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Fordham Environmental Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 18)
Fordham Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 14)
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: 23)
George Washington Law Review     Free   (Followers: 8)
Georgia Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Georgia State University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Global Journal of Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)

        1 2 3 4 | Last

Journal Cover Campbell Law Review
  [5 followers]  Follow
    
  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
   ISSN (Print) 0198-8174
   Published by Campbell University Homepage  [1 journal]
  • Find Out Who Your Friends Are: A Framework for Determining Whether
           Employees' Social Media Followers Follow Them to a New Job

    • Authors: Christopher A. Moore
      Abstract: No crevice of society remains untouched by the pervasiveness of social media-including the workplace. Every day, employers and employees become more skilled at cultivating an online network of followers and then turning those contacts into dollars. Employees increasingly use social media accounts to expand their business activities, be it the journalist who breaks news on Twitter or the realtor who advertises open houses on Facebook. While the ever-expanding use of social media in the course of employment provides immeasurable benefits to both the employer and employee alike, it also creates more problems. Perhaps chief among them: Whose account is it? Whereas employers and departing employees used to fight over the rolodex, they now jockey over the password that delivers direct access to thousands of business contacts.While password disputes are beginning to trickle into courts across the country, early jurisprudence on the issue is wildly inconsistent. Before the floodgates of professional social media account litigation open, courts need to adopt a framework that resolves disputes consistently and fairly. This Comment suggests that the license agreements underlying social media accounts should constitute personal property. Then, the Comment provides a two-step approach for determining whether the employer or employee is the real licensee of the account and, therefore, receives the property rights that attach to the license.
      PubDate: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:53:57 PDT
       
  • Leandro's Left Behind: How North Carolina's English Learners
           Have Been Denied Their Fundamental Right to a Sound Basic Education

    • Authors: Karlie Love Hudson
      Abstract: Under Leandro v. State, the North Carolina Constitution guarantees a sound basic education for all students enrolled in public schools. This Comment addresses the state's current system for educating the rising number of non-native English speaking students and demonstrates how that system has failed to meet Leandro's command.This Comment uses the framework constructed in Leandro to explore North Carolina's current challenges in educating English Learners ("EL"). It examines the long-standing achievement gap that exists between EL students and their native-English speaking peers and demonstrates that EL students are not receiving a sound basic education. Additionally, this Comment examines the language-acquisition programs currently used throughout the state and the promising steps North Carolina has taken to address the needs of these students. It also considers programs implemented in other jurisdictions and offers proposed solutions for further improvement to ensure that North Carolina's EL students obtain their constitutionally guaranteed opportunity to a sound basic education.
      PubDate: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:53:53 PDT
       
  • Employment and Diversity-Based Visas: Why Birthright Citizenship Is Not
           All That Is Wrong With America's Immigration System

    • Authors: Cassidy Cloninger
      Abstract: As the American immigration system presently operates, various incongruities exist for those seeking to permanently immigrate to the United States. Requirements and processing times differ greatly depending on an individual's home country and the type of relationship the individual has with a U.S. sponsor (e.g., familial vs. employment based). For example, as of December 2016, the most recent application under review for brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens from the Philippines is from May 22, 1993, while the EB-5's employment-based visa processing date for investors from the Philippines is listed as "Current." Consider the hypotheticals of Maria Guinto and Maricris Llamador Gunigundo:Maria Guinto is a 32-year-old woman from the Philippines. Her only brother, Erik Lumaban, is a United States citizen. Erik is the only family that Maria has left, as her parents were killed in a car accident when she and Erik were both very young and neither of her parents had any brothers or sisters. Thus, Maria wishes to join her brother and his wife in the United States and to become a U.S. citizen herself To do so, Maria must prove that she has a qualifying family relationship. In this case, the fact that Maria is the sister of a U.S. citizen places her in the fourth family-sponsored preference. As such, Maria will wait over twenty years for her turn to obtain a legal immigrant visa. This does not include the time it will take U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to process her application, which can be up to sixteen months, or longer, depending on the volume of applications.On the other hand, Maricris Llamador Gunigundo, a wealthy Filipino investor, has made his fortune by constructing and operating high-end hotels in and around the Philippines. Maricris is an avid traveler and frequently travels to the United States on vacation. However, Maricris is unhappy with the amount of time it takes for him to obtain visitor visas to the United States and with the lines he must stand in when entering the country. Thus, Maricris decided that he would like to obtain an American green card to enter and exit the United States more easily. He then decided that he is willing to invest the required $1 million in a new commercial enterprise in the United States. This investment will qualify Maricris for the fifth employment-based category, or an EB-5 visa. As such, USCIS will review Maricris's application immediately, though he may experience some wait time for USCIS to actually process his application.This hypothetical illustrates just one of many discrepancies that exist in the American immigration system today and highlights the unfair advantages that the very wealthy are provided over those seeking to join their families here in the United States. As such, the United States should alter its immigration system by reallocating the EB-5 employment-based visas and all diversity lottery visas to the family-sponsored category in order to increase the number of visas granted to family members of lawful permanent residents and U.S. citizens each year.
      PubDate: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:53:50 PDT
       
  • The Americanism of Justice Holmes

    • Authors: Andres Yoder
      Abstract: There is no obvious way to reconcile each of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s intellectual sides. There is the monstrous Holmes, who thought the world was meaningless, insignificant, and hopelessly violent. There is the tender Holmes, who jealously guarded the time he could spend enjoying literature, philosophy, and art. And there is the scholarly Holmes, who left behind a litany of influential judicial opinions and articles, as well as a classic book, The Common Law.Although the gulfs between each of Holmes's sides can make reconstructing his thought seem daunting, the task is amenable to a fairly simple solution: Holmes leavened his dismal worldview with a sense of self that allowed him to think of life as valuable, and with a theory of cooperative combinations that opened the door to a better future. Using his famous dissent in Lochner v. New York as a case study, it becomes possible to see how Holmes built his constitutional jurisprudence from these basic premises.Perhaps surprisingly, a close investigation of Holmes's Lochner dissent reveals that his worldview, his theory of combinations, and his sense of self led him to reject the doctrine of judicial supremacy.
      PubDate: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:53:47 PDT
       
  • The Law Is What It Is, But Is It Equitable: The Law of Encroachments Where
           the Innocent, Negligent, and Willful Are Treated the Same

    • Authors: Olivia L. Weeks
      Abstract: A landowner builds a house that encroaches two feet on his neighbor's property. The encroachment involves very little land, but it creates many issues for the respective landowners. In today's society, where subdivisions are developed daily, there is an increasing potential for encroachments due to innocent mistakes, negligence, or willfulness. When an encroachment occurs, it would be terrific if the parties could negotiate a fair solution, but this rarely happens. This is because the law automatically places an encroaching landowner in an inferior bargaining position. In North Carolina, courts will order the encroaching landowner to remove the encroachment regardless of his intent. Therefore, the encroaching landowner must meet the neighbor's demands for waiving a mandatory injunction to compel removal or prepare to move the encroaching portion of the structure.This Article addresses the public policy and equitable issues sparked by the encroachment of a permanent structure on an adjoining landowner's property. It focuses on the equitable hardship doctrine, which is commonly invoked by many jurisdictions in encroachment cases and applied when the circumstances of a given case justify superseding the landowner's ordinary remedy to an injunction-a doctrine which North Carolina has paid lip service to but does not apply. The analysis in this Article leads to the conclusion that in determining whether to grant an injunction, a court must balance the equities by assessing the relative hardship of each party. Application of the equitable hardship doctrine in encroachment cases will prevent economic waste, the potential for extortion, and unnecessary litigation, and create a just result for both parties.
      PubDate: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:53:43 PDT
       
  • Torrens Title in North Carolina - Maybe a Hundred Years Is Long Enough

    • Authors: John V. Orth
      Abstract: For over a century, North Carolina property owners have been offered an alternative to the traditional deed and recording system. Title to land may instead be entered in the Torrens system of registered titles. Under the Torrens system, the court determines the state of the title and issues a certificate, which is held in the registry with a copy given to the registered owner. The certificate provides conclusive evidence of ownership and of any liens or encumbrances on the property. Unlike titles evidenced by deeds, Torrens titles are not subject to loss by adverse possession, and transfer of a Torrens title is a simple process of changing the certificate in the registry and issuing a new certificate. A darling of Progressive law reformers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, nineteen states eventually adopted the Torrens system, although many later had second thoughts and abandoned the system. In 1913, North Carolina became the tenth state to adopt a Torrens Act. North Carolina's experience with Torrens was in many ways typical: a Progressive campaign for adoption, complete with promises of economy and efficiency; adoption followed by a burst of registrations; dwindling registrations as the system's practical shortcomings became apparent; ultimate disuse except in rare (and somewhat questionable) circumstances. But unlike many other states that experimented with the Torrens system, North Carolina has not repealed its Torrens Law; at least not yet. Beginning in 2002, litigation in Eastern North Carolina has drawn renewed attention to the Torrens system and prompted questions about its continued usefulness in the state.
      PubDate: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:53:39 PDT
       
  • A Plea to North Carolina: Bring Fairness to the Assessment of Civil
           Battery Liability for Defendants with Cognitive Disabilities

    • Authors: Johnny C. Chriscoe
      Abstract: In certain instances, the courts appear to apply the law of civil battery in a confused and unfair manner to defendants with cognitive disabilities. In cases where there is the "appearance" of a civil battery-where the defendant causes harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff-courts appear to assume the existence of the requisite intent and, accordingly, the commission of the tort. As justification, the courts frequently offer that "the insane are liable for their torts."This Article agrees that a cognitive disability, or "insanity " to employ the terminology often used by the courts, is not an affirmative defense to intentional torts in general or to battery in particular. The Article argues, however, that a relevant and diagnosable cognitive disability may in certain instances have bearing on the plaintiffs ability to meet the burden of proving the necessary, prima facie element of intent. In such instances, fairness and the proper application of the law of battery demand that the plaintiff meet this burden of proof before the case can move forward.North Carolina cases are among those that appear to confuse the prima facie element of intent with the affirmative defense of insanity. However, these North Carolina cases are now decades old and ripe for a revisit. This timing, coupled with the willingness of North Carolina courts to think innovatively about complex legal issues, makes the North Carolina judiciary an excellent candidate to clarify the law of civil battery as applied to persons with relevant and diagnosable cognitive disabilities. This Article is a plea to North Carolina courts to bring clarity to the law of civil battery and fairness to the assessment of liability in defendants with cognitive disabilities.
      PubDate: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:53:35 PDT
       
  • Dedication to Professor Margaret P. Currin

    • Authors: Allegra Collins
      PubDate: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:53:31 PDT
       
  • United States v. Bryant, Federal Habitual Offender Laws, and the Rights of
           Defendants in Tribal Courts: A Better Solution to Domestic Violence Exists
           

    • Authors: Monique Kreisman
      Abstract: “If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.” Since Miranda v. Arizona, that popularized phrase has widely been regarded as true in the United States. However, because the Bill of Rights does not apply to Native American tribes, defendants in tribal courts are regularly sentenced to imprisonment without the aid of counsel. One of those defendants was Michael Bryant, who has several convictions for domestic assault and was not appointed counsel even though he was indigent and imprisoned.Domestic assault is a terrible problem in Native American communities. Native American women suffer from domestic violence at higher rates than any other racial group. In an effort to reduce domestic violence in the tribes, Congress criminalized domestic assault by a habitual offender. That crime requires two prior convictions, which can be obtained in tribal courts. However, because the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) does not guarantee the same rights as the United States Constitution, a conviction may be valid in tribal court even though it would have been unconstitutional had it been obtained in state or federal court. That conviction may then be used as a predicate offense for domestic assault by a habitual offender.In United States v. Bryant, the Supreme Court held that it is permissible to use uncounseled tribal court convictions as predicate offenses. The Court decided the issue, but a sense of injustice remains. It seems backhanded to use uncounseled tribal convictions to prove an element of a federal offense when those same convictions could not be used if they had been obtained in a different court. This Note proposes three solutions. One solution is to amend the Indian Civil Rights Act to make tribal court defendants’ rights coexistant with state or federal court defendants’ rights. Another is to give tribal courts the authority to impose harsher penalties for domestic assault instead of leaving the federal government as the only court system with the ability to impose adequate penalties. A third proposal is to expand the jurisdiction of tribal courts to allow them to prosecute non-members who commit offenses on tribal lands. Each of these solutions preserves the Court’s reasoning in United States v. Bryant while making the process more just for offenders, victims, and the tribes.
      PubDate: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 09:59:57 PST
       
  • Better to Play Dead: Examining North Carolina's Living Probate Law
           and Its Potential Effect on Testamentary Disposition

    • Authors: Kyle Frizzelle
      Abstract: On August 11, 2015, North Carolina became the fifth state in the nation to permit a “living probate" proceeding. Like the laws of the four states before it, the new North Carolina law empowers a court to decide the validity of an individual’s will while that individual is still alive. Generally, if the court determines the will is valid, that order is binding. In North Carolina, however, it may not be. In this state, an interested party may challenge a will after the testator has died, even though a court has already found the will valid based on evidence presented by the testator himself. This possibility should not exist. Allowing a post-mortem will contest in this situation destroys the desirability of living probate as an estate planning tool.This Comment first offers a brief overview of living probate in North Carolina before analyzing benefits and concerns commonly associated with the proceeding. After establishing that the advantages of living probate make it a workable option for many individuals, discussion then turns to the effects of North Carolina’s flawed provision. Because allowing a post-mortem will contest of an already validated will effectively renders living probate pointless, the North Carolina General Assembly should remove the provision entirely.
      PubDate: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 09:59:54 PST
       
  • The Peering Predator: Drone Technology Leaves Children Unprotected from
           Registered Sex Offenders

    • Authors: Peter N. Borden
      Abstract: The increased accessibility of drone technology for private operators frustrates the purpose of existing sex offender legislation. Sex offenders who are intent on committing further unlawful acts may use the vast capabilities of modern drone technology to target children. This Comment explores current restrictions imposed on registered sex offenders and discusses how those restrictions are insufficient to protect children from sex offender recidivism. In order to bridge the gap between sex offender legislation and the rise of private drone use, North Carolina needs new legislation that appropriately limits registered sex offenders from obtaining or using drones for the purpose of harming children.
      PubDate: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 09:59:51 PST
       
  • The Next Frontier in Drone Law: Liability for Cybersecurity Negligence and
           Data Breaches for UAS Operators

    • Authors: Joseph J. Vacek
      Abstract: While questions related to UAS operations and use in government surveillance have been discussed at length, the legal ramifications of cybersecurity negligence and data breaches for UAS operators have yet to be addressed. In Part I, this article seeks to explore those areas by discussing the UAS data chain. Vulnerabilities in this data chain specific to UAS and in general are explored, followed by an examination of the state of the law related to the collection, use, retention, and dissemination of data. Part I concludes with an overview of current voluntary “Best Practice” documents offering guidance for collecting and managing data. Part II of this article applies Article III standing requirements and third-party liability limitations to the cybersecurity negligence and data breach issues. Existing federal law does not address liability for cybersecurity negligence or data breaches in UAS operations. This, combined with current interpretations of Article III standing requirements and a lack of a required standard of care for UAS operators to protect against cyber attack by third parties, results in the lack of a legal remedy for people whose private data is captured by drone and later compromised in a cybersecurity breach. Thus, it appears UAS operators are effectively shielded from liability for data breaches beyond the UAS operation and in flight data collection.
      PubDate: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 09:59:47 PST
       
  • Antitrust Precedent & Anti-Fraternity Sentiment: Revisiting Hamilton
           College

    • Authors: Jared S. Sunshine
      Abstract: Over a decade ago, Prof. Mark Bauer wrote an article exploring the antitrust implications of a small college’s decision to forbid fraternities from competing in the student housing market and the ensuing litigation. Expanding this line of research, several key holdings—despite contrary antitrust doctrine elsewhere—have granted universities broad authority to control the residential choices of their students qua consumers, bespeaking a unique relationship between university and student to which the fraternity is an interloper. These core cases casually allude to the ostensibly defunct doctrine of in loco parentis, under which colleges were once seen as proxy parents to their pupils, implying that in housing matters the paradigm of the custodial university retains the force to overcome competitive concerns. Given both costs and benefits to that view, this Article calls for more judicial scrutiny of the relations amongst colleges, students, and fraternities.
      PubDate: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 09:59:44 PST
       
  • The Case for Nonmutual Privity in Vicarious Liability Relationships:
           Pushing the Frontiers of the Law of Claim Preclusion

    • Authors: Glenn S. Koppel
      Abstract: This article sheds light on an evolving area of preclusion law—nonmutual claim preclusion and the related issue of privity between parties to a vicarious liability relationship—that merits scholarly attention and greater doctrinal clarity. To illustrate, if an injured party asserts a negligence claim against a truck driver, and judgment is rendered against the injured party based on a finding of the driver’s nonnegligence, may the driver’s employer invoke claim preclusion or issue preclusion in a subsequent action by the injured party? Are the employer and his employee in privity with each other despite the lack of mutuality? When this fact pattern actually became the subject of a sample multiple-choice question published in 2014 by the National Committee of Bar Examiners, several procedural scholars responded that a plausible case could be made for either of two of the four choices—claim preclusion or issue preclusion. Their various responses reveal a need to provide a measure of coherence to this corner of preclusion law.These differing doctrinal views raise three significant issues addressed in this article. First, does claim preclusion bar the suit against the truck driver’s employer or only issue preclusion? Second, if the employer can reap the benefits of claim preclusion, is nonmutual claim preclusion available in the first instance or only as a fallback if issue preclusion is unavailable? Third, to the extent that nonmutual claim preclusion is applicable, is it justified doctrinally as an extension of privity to include employee and employer or as an exception to privity?This Article proposes that adding derivative liability relationships to the recognized categories of substantive legal relationships that “are sometimes collectively referred to as ‘privity’” and applying nonmutual claim preclusion, even where issue preclusion would otherwise have been available, is—and as a matter of policy should be—the next logical step in the evolution of preclusion law. The law of preclusion has evolved progressively beyond the formalist rule of mutuality that traditionally served as the basis for the so-called “narrow and broad exceptions” to the doctrine of collateral estoppel. As a consequence of the erosion of mutuality, a substantial number of American jurisdictions apply those exceptions to claim preclusion by expanding the concept of privity to include vicarious liability relationships.
      PubDate: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 09:59:40 PST
       
  • Challenges to Crowdfunding Offering Disclosures: What Grade Will Your
           Offering Disclosure Get?

    • Authors: Zachary James Wilson
      Abstract: Crowdfunding is a term used in many different contexts. The conversation surrounding crowdfunding encompasses diverse considerations and interests. In its broadest sense, crowdfunding is a technological fundraising medium for businesses, projects, or charitable causes. Instead of dealing with a financial institution or specific angel investors or venture capital funds, crowdfunded start-ups try to raise money from a worldwide "crowd." Some crowdfunding campaigns solicit donations and pre-orders, such as Kickstarter or Gofundme. Others sell securities. This Comment will only address the rules that apply to crowdfunding campaigns which offer securities.Securities laws have two prime directives. First, companies can only offer and sell securities in a registered offering or in an offering that satisfies the requirements of an exemption from registration. Second, these businesses must not misstate material facts or omit material facts if the omission would make its other disclosures misleading to investors.Primarily, the JOBS Act and other crowdfunding laws focus on the first prime directive. They create exemptions from registration that allow businesses to crowdfund, utilize general solicitation and, in some cases, offer and sell securities to non-accredited investors. These new exemptions present exciting and important changes that democratize the capital raising process by allowing new subsets of businesses to communicate with a broader investor base than ever before.This Comment will briefly discuss these updated exemptions with a particular focus on Title II of the JOBS Act and the related SEC Rule 506(c), as well as Title IV of the JOBS Act and what some call Regulation A+. Both Rule 506 (c) and Regulation A+ are revolutionary because they change who may talk to investors and the technologies that may be used to reach them. The primary focus of this Comment is to discuss these securities laws' requirements for disclosures to investors in light of the brave new world crowdfunding offers. On their face, the updated exemptions change very little about what issuers must say to investors. The disclosure challenges posed by the updated exemptions affect new issuers who have little prior disclosure experience and may have very low compliance budgets. These challenges require such new issuers to comply with traditional securities disclosure rules when they are talking to a less sophisticated crowd of investors than ever before utilizing new technological platforms that are constantly evolving. This Comment discusses how and why an issuer taking advantage of these updated exemptions might inadvertently violate securities disclosure laws when the speaker changes, the audience changes, or the disclosure platform changes, and how to avoid potential traps these changes create when paired with newly available disclosure platforms.
      PubDate: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 07:08:56 PDT
       
  • Putting North Carolina Through the PACES: Bringing Intrastate Crowdfunding
           to North Carolina Through the NC PACES Act

    • Authors: C. Marshall Horsman III
      Abstract: The nationwide increase in the number of small businesses over the past several years has led to more small businesses, startups, and entrepreneurs seeking capital investments from the general public in order to build and grow their businesses. In an effort to attract investors, businesses have taken an interest in securities crowdfunding, a method for raising capital whereby businesses offer stock in their companies in exchange for capital from investors. While an offering of securities generally must be registered with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, companies can circumvent the registration requirement by utilizing one of the available exemptions provided by federal statute. This Comment focuses primarily on the intrastate exemption, which allows businesses to sell securities if the offering is wholly contained within a single state, but only if that state has given businesses the option to use that exemption. Since 2011, over half of the states have passed legislation permitting businesses within those states to take advantage of the intrastate exemption. North Carolina, through the NC PACES Act, is considering passing such legislation, yet that bill has been stalled in the North Carolina General Assembly since April of 2015. This Comment highlights the benefits that North Carolina can enjoy by allowing intrastate securities crowdfunding and ultimately calls for the General Assembly to pass the NC PACES Act.
      PubDate: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 07:08:52 PDT
       
  • Access to Capital: Rethinking Local Crowdfunding

    • Authors: James J. Cronin III
      Abstract: As a response to recent and possibly premature state action in passing local crowdfunding legislation, this Comment examines why states should exercise care in their choice of language and legislation when amending state securities laws to enable crowdfunding.In order to understand the landscape of crowdfunding as a form of capital formation, it is imperative to understand generally how and why the states have turned to the enactment of legislation in order to aid small businesses in raising capital. Borrowed from the rewards-based model of crowdfunding, made most popular by Kickstarter and Indiegogo, investment crowdfunding is viewed as an innovative measure for raising capital that no longer relies upon the conventional institutions to provide funding for small businesses. These small companies may never elicit the attention necessary to induce investment from institutions most able to provide them with the capital they need, and so investment crowdfunding was born from this need to reach a broad audience, while also encouraging and facilitating investment from any and all who were financially capable of doing so.
      PubDate: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 07:08:48 PDT
       
  • Equity Crowdfunding as Economic Development?

    • Authors: David Groshoff
      Abstract: The so-called "JOBS Act" became law in 2012. Part of the JOBS Act was to make obtaining financial capital for the small businessperson or entrepreneur more easily available by making equity crowdfunding permissible under the securities laws and regulations promulgated thereunder. I have defined "crowdfunding" and its different flavors in several prior publications and will not repeat that exercise here. Although the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has promulgated regulations regarding some portions of the JOBS Act, and some outsiders believe the SEC's move to clarify rule A+ offerings in 2015 was a positive. This Article, however, reiterates that, until full implementation of the JOBS Act's necessary regulatory environment occurs, penalties will continue to accrue to start-up enterprises, individual investors, and potential employees facing rigged employment numbers that negate those individuals who have simply stopped their respective job searches because of the economic environment.
      PubDate: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:23:10 PDT
       
  • Strict in the Wrong Places: State Crowdfunding Exemptions' Failure to
           Effectively Balance Investor Protection and Capital Raising

    • Authors: Annalise H. Farris
      Abstract: In 2012, Congress passed the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, which created an exemption from securities registration for crowdfunded capital raises. Although it was not until May of 2016 that the Securities and Exchange Commission's rules implementing this exemption took effect, many states used the interim period to enact crowdfunding exemptions of their own.Although most of these exemptions aim to increase small businesses' access to capital while still providing adequate investor protection, the exemptions differ greatly in their individual applications. Consequently, a comparison of these exemptions provides a useful analysis of effective regulation in an area of the law new to all players. This Article provides a survey of several state crowdfunding exemptions, focusing on critical characteristics that affect the success of the offering. This Article argues that many of the existing state exemptions fail to effectively help companies raise capital or protect investors against fraud, but instead are overly restrictive in their financial restraints while being too lenient in their investor protection measures. It then suggests a state exemption framework intended to better serve the companies and investors utilizing crowdfunding exemptions.
      PubDate: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:23:07 PDT
       
  • Symposium Forward

    • Authors: Benji Jones
      PubDate: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:53:10 PDT
       
 
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
 
Home (Search)
Subjects A-Z
Publishers A-Z
Customise
APIs
Your IP address: 54.224.50.28
 
About JournalTOCs
API
Help
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-2016