Date of Publication:
Tim Kaye, Rights Gone Wrong: The Failure of Fundamentalist Tort Theory, 78 Miss. L.J. 931 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Theresa J. Pulley Radwan and Rebecca C. Morgan, Today’s Elderly in Bankruptcy and Predictions for the Elderly of Tomorrow, 6 NAELA Journal 1 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor, White-Collar Crime and the Recession: Was the Chicken or the Egg First?, 2010 U. Chi. Legal F. 205 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Mark D. Bauer, Department Stores on Sale: An Antitrust Quandary, 26 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 255 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
In 2005, Macy's bought its largest competitor, May Department Stores, for $17 billion. The resulting combination created a department store behemoth with over one thousand stores across the United States. Despite protests by the attorneys general of a number of states, and consumers and advocacy groups around the country, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") blessed this merger without requiring any modification in its terms. And according to law and economics scholars, this merger had no substantive impact on consumers, competition or consumer welfare.
My empirical research, published in an earlier law review article, showed that Macy's now charges consumers 13% more than it did before the merger, and was featured in a page one New York Times article. My empirical research, however, was an observation. This article tells the heart of a very compelling story behind that empirical research and critically analyzes important legal questions. Department stores are an important part of the fabric of American life. For example, more than two years after Macy's changed the name of all Marshall Field's stores in Chicago, people are still picketing the store - in fact they led a large protest at Macy's most recent annual stock holder's meeting. Barely a day goes by without a major newspaper featuring a story on the plight of American department stores and consumer angst over these destructive changes.
The FTC, which investigated Macy's acquisition of May, may have erred. This article explains the relevant history of department stores, analyzes the FTC's flawed investigation of the deal, and critiques the narrowly applied law and economics analysis that led to these incorrect conclusions.
Date of Publication:
Louis J. Virelli, Judging Darwin: Understanding the New Adjudicative Model of Evolution Instruction, 13 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 81 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The debate over teaching evolution in public school science classes is changing rapidly. States have recently adopted new anti-evolution policy measures that represent a significant departure from previous efforts to curtail the teaching of evolution. These new measures employ what I describe in this Article as the “distributive model” of evolution education. The distributive model shuns legislative or regulatory prescriptions in favor of higher-order policy statements encouraging educators to promote critical thinking about scientific questions, including evolution. These policy statements empower individual educators to judge for themselves how best to engage in a critical review of evolution on a case-by-case basis. The emergence of the distributive model is critical to the future of evolution instruction because it portends a paradigmatic shift in the way we view evolution education policy. Prior to the introduction of the distributive model, courts consistently invalidated efforts to curtail evolution instruction under the Establishment Clause. This Article identifies the emergence of the distributive model and argues for a brand new way of looking at evolution instruction policy through the lens of administrative, rather than merely First Amendment, law. This new perspective is important because it offers a more holistic view of the distributive model’s highly dynamic policy environment than that provided by the Establishment Clause. More specifically, viewing the distributive model in accord with principles of administrative law reveals a number of significant political and legal issues independent from, and potentially preclusive of, Establishment Clause analysis.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor, White Collar Innocence: Irrelevant in the High Stakes Risk Game, 85 Chicago-Kent Law Review 77 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
When one thinks of “wrongful convictions and reliability in the criminal justice process” one often thinks of street crime convictions of defendants later proven innocent through DNA or other scientific evidence. But this Essay presents a new dimension to this issue - the white collar crime context. Three stories are considered here: Arthur Andersen LLP, Jamie Olis, and Jeffrey Skilling - all who proceeded to trial after criminal charges were brought against them; and contrasting these three with KPMG, Gene Foster, and Andrew Fastow, all who secured plea agreements or deferred prosecution agreements with reduced sentences and finite results. The concern here is that innocence or guilt does not always frame the judicial process in white collar cases. The risk of trial becomes so great that in order to minimize the possible consequences, innocence becomes an irrelevancy. Although the plea bargain to trial differential existed for many years in crimes outside the white collar crime context, the high sentences now being given to individuals and entities charged with white collar crimes place these crimes in comparable stead with street crimes. This gives pause to whether the next phase of wrongful convictions might move beyond street crimes into the white collar world.
Date of Publication:
Elizabeth Berenguer, Deadly Combinations: How Self-Defense Laws Pairing Immunity with a Presumption of Fear Allow Criminals to Get Away with Murder, 34 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 105 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This Article identifies as problematic the intersection of Florida’s Immunity Statute and its current Castle Doctrine, which presumes reasonable fear where one acts in self-defense in the “castle.” The coupling together of immunity and the presumption of reasonable fear creates a bar to prosecution in Castle self-defense cases. The Article addresses problems associated with the lack of guidelines to ensure the equal application of the law to self-defense cases, and the lack of procedural tools available for the assertion of immunity arising from a self-defense act.
Date of Publication:
Louis J. Virelli, Evolutionary Due Process, 104 Northwestern Juniversity Law Review Colloquy 251 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Paul Boudreaux, Time Machine: Emma’s Legal Education, 59 J. Legal Educ. 454 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
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.