Date of Publication:
Rebecca C. Morgan, The Future of Elder Law. NAELA Quarterly Winter, 1999 President’s Message, 12 NAELA Quarterly 2 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Rebecca C. Morgan, Introduction, Teaching Elder Law, 40 Stetson L. Rev. 1 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Andrew D. Appleby, For the Love of the Game: The Justification for Tax Exemption in Intercollegiate Athletics, 44 John Marshall Law Review 179– (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Intercollegiate athletics are a fundamental part of the American college experience. Nothing else unites and impassions entire campuses while providing educational opportunities to thousands of students who might not otherwise be able to attend college. Congress and the IRS have long recognized the immense educational value of intercollegiate athletics and have properly exempted intercollegiate athletics from federal income taxation. However, a few vocal critics have overreacted to escalating broadcasting agreements and coaching salaries, often without stepping back to examine these transactions in a broader tax policy context. This Article does just that, and demonstrates that longstanding tax exemption is undeniably justified in intercollegiate athletics.
This Article begins in Part I with an overview of tax exemption fundamentals, including a discussion of the tax policy justifications for tax exemption. Part II provides a brief history of tax exemption for intercollegiate athletics, as well as an overview of the current legislative posture. Part III provides an analysis of tax exemption in intercollegiate athletics. This part illustrates that intercollegiate athletics satisfy all the requirements for tax exemption, and that even activities such as big-time D-I football and basketball very likely avoid the Unrelated Business Income Tax (UBIT). Additionally, this part demonstrates that tax exemption is justified for intercollegiate athletics under several tax policy justifications, and that intercollegiate athletics also fall outside the UBIT justifications. This part concludes with a proposal to clarify that intercollegiate athletics should remain fully exempt from federal income taxation.
Date of Publication:
Rebecca C. Morgan, The Future of Elder Law Practice, 37 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Luz Estella Nagle, Terrorism and Universal Jurisdiction: Opening a Pandora’s Box, 27 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 339 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, a compelling legal debate has arisen pertaining to whether terrorism is an international crime or a transnational crime, and if and in what context actors and acts, to which we affix the label of terrorist and terrorism, should or can be subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and other criminal tribunals having universal jurisdiction. Some legal scholars believe terrorists acts should be subject to universal jurisdiction, while others believe that elevating terrorism to the same level of universally-recognized extreme crimes elicits several concerns. This article examines both sides of the debate and presents arguments that terrorism should remain outside the framework of universal jurisdiction.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor, Regulating Lawyers: Same Theme, New Context, 2010 Journal of the Professional Lawyer 191 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor, The Tainted Federal Prosecutor in an Overcriminalized Justice System, 67 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1569 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The infiltration of politics in the Department of Justice (DOJ) is the discussion in four recent oversight reports. Commentators and scholars have responded with varying solutions to ensure these mistakes will not be repeated.
This Essay looks at politicization in DOJ from a different angle. It focuses first on the importance of maintaining political neutrality in DOJ and then stresses the need to examine structural changes in the criminal justice process that will minimize the ability to have decisions that might be politicized or might suggest an appearance of being politicized. Instead of focusing only on corrections to alleviate politicization in the federal criminal justice system, the focus also needs to look at overcriminalization, the breadth or many criminal statutes, the increased lack of mens rea required in criminal offenses, and the ability of prosecutors to use “short-cut” offenses to proceed with charges with relatively little proof. Conquering systemic problems accruing from an overcriminalized system will assure that decision-making is consistent and not a product of a prosecutor’s personal preferences. Thus, even if politicization should again enter into the DOJ, limited power in decisionmaking would avoid any possible problems that might accrue from the appearance or reality of having politically connected decisionmakers.
Date of Publication:
Luz Estella Nagle, Corruption of Politicians, Law Enforcement, and the Judiciary in Mexico and Complicity Across the Border, 21 Small Wars and Insurgencies 95 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor, Welcome to the Other Side of the Railroad Tracks: A Meaningless Exclusionary Rule, 16 Southwestern Journal of International Law 299 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Marco Jimenez, The Many Faces of Promissory Estoppel: An Empirical Analysis Under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 57 UCLA L. Rev. 669 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This Article examines more than three hundred promissory estoppel cases decided between January 1, 1981, when the Restatement (Second) of Contracts was published, and January 1, 2008, when research for this project began, to explore the manner in which courts conceptualize, decide, and enforce promissory estoppel claims under § 90 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. Specifically, because the drafters of the Restatement (Second) made several important changes to § 90 of the Restatement (First) with the intent of making promissory estoppel more available, the role of reliance more prominent, and the remedies awarded to successful litigants more flexible, this Article investigates whether these changes have had their desired effect on promissory estoppel doctrine as reflected in the case law.
The research presented here can be interpreted to support three major claims. First, these data suggest that promissory estoppel is a much more significant theory of promissory recovery than has been previously thought and seems positioned to continue to grow in importance in the coming decades. Second, the data reveal that promissory estoppel cannot be understood exclusively in terms of “promise” or “reliance,” as some scholars and judges have suggested. Instead, the data reveal that most judges require the existence of both promise and reliance before allowing a promissory estoppel claim to proceed, although surprisingly few judges require a plaintiff to show that the equitable principle of “justice” has been satisfied. Last, and most significantly, these data reveal that, with respect to remedies, courts tend to treat promissory estoppel actions as traditional breach of contract actions, in that courts generally tend to award the (usually) more generous expectation measure of damages, which is typical in ordinary breach of contract actions, over the (usually) less generous reliance measure of damages, which is often awarded where non-contractual obligations have been breached (such as in tort law). However, by replacing these conceptual labels (such as “expectation” and “reliance” damages) with a more functional classificatory scheme capturing whether a promissory estoppel plaintiff has obtained the highest recovery available under any other theory of promissory recovery, including a “traditional” breach of contract action, this Article argues that the extent to which courts have treated promissory estoppel claims as fully contractual has been underappreciated.