Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor, Introduction: Overcriminalization: New Approaches to a Growing Problem, 102 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 529 (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Cynthia Hawkins DeBose, “Colonial White Mater Privilege”: An Above-Ground Railroad to Freedom & Land Reclamation for the Mulatto Descendant (circa 1700s-1800s), 55 How. L.J. 455 (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This article provides a unique analysis of anti-miscegenation case law from the Colonial Period. The article discusses the utilization of “Colonial White Mater Privilege” (a theory coined by the author) by mulatto descendants of a White matriarch to regain their freedom and property rights. Part I discusses the applicable anti-miscegenation statues. Part ll presents the theory of Colonial White Mater Privilege. Part lll discusses race-mixing in Colonial Maryland. Part IV presents the history and cases involving the author’s ancestors (the author traces her genealogy back to the 1600s). Part V tests the theory through all seventeen of the applicable Maryland state cases from the 1700s and 1800s. Part VI illustrates that, as a vestige of slavery, economic disparity continues for Black families into the 21st century.
Date of Publication:
Michèle Alexandre, Review of Crystal N. Feimster, Southern Horrors: Women and the Politics of Rape and Lynching, 52 Am. J. Legal Hist. 231 (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Cynthia Hawkins DeBose, Post-Adoption Services Utilization Among African American, Transracial and White American Parents: Counseling and Legal Implications, 20 Fam. J. 392 (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor, Gideon: Looking Back to the 40th Anniversary, 36 The Champion 64 (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner et al., Avoiding, Mitigating, and Compensating for Loss and Degradation of Wetlands in National Laws and Policies, (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
W. Scott Wright et al., Courting Independence: The Rise of Effective State Tax Courts and Tribunals, Tax Analysts: State Tax Notes 475 (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner, Mitigation Banking and Reputational Risk, 34 Nat'l Wetlands Newsletter 10– (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Jason Bent, An Incentive-Based Approach to Regulating Workplace Chemicals, 73 Ohio St. L.J. 1389– (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The United States’ system for regulating employee exposures to hazardous chemicals is broken. Absent regulation, the labor market fails to produce efficient levels of precaution against chemical exposures. Information asymmetries, long disease latency periods, and other characteristics of chemical exposures thwart the market’s ability to produce efficient risk/wage tradeoffs. These same characteristics permit employers and chemical manufacturers to externalize the costs of injuries caused by chemical exposures. The current U.S. regulatory system, including a combination of OSHA regulations and state workers’ compensation programs, is not correcting the labor market’s failure. The result is a level of workplace chemical exposure risk that is systematically too high, and a level of precaution that is systematically too low. The reforms proposed in the literature to date do not harness the financial incentives of the least-cost information providers and least-cost risk avoiders: chemical manufacturers and employers. This Article takes the search for a solution in a new direction by using state workers’ compensation laws to capitalize on the incentives of chemical manufacturers and employers. The Article argues that state workers’ compensation laws should be amended in two ways: (1) shift the default burden of proof on causation to the respondents, but only in cases where there is no applicable OSHA exposure limit, and (2) allow employers to include chemical manufacturers as respondents in workers’ compensation proceedings for purposes of apportioning liability. These amendments could be implemented by convening a new National Commission on State Workers’ Compensation Laws. The result would be a new push for OSHA chemical exposure limits by chemical manufacturers and employers – the entities in the best position to provide the toxicity and precaution information necessary to support OSHA regulations.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner, Mitigation Banking and Takings, 34 Nat'l Wetlands Newsletter 7– (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.