Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor and Jerold H. Israel, Nutshell on White Collar Crime (5th ed., West Academic Publishing, 2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor et al., Statutory and Documentary Supplement for White Collar Crime: Law and Practice (4th ed., West Academic Publishing, 2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Candace Zierdt and William J. Woodward Jr., Skills And Values: Contracts (2nd ed., LexisNexis, 2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Kristen R. Moore et al., Managing Disruptive Patron Behavior in Law Libraries: A Grey Paper, 107 Law Libr. J. 491 (2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Nearly all law library staff have encountered, and likely will encounter, some measure of challenging patron behavior. This white paper, dubbed by the authors a "grey paper" as it attempts to analyze and contend with a fundamentally dynamic phenomenon, was written at the request of the AALL RIPS-SIS Executive Board with the hope of providing a jumping off point for further inquiry and discussion on current best practices in managing difficult, challenging or disruptive patron behavior in law libraries. In lieu of a traditional white paper solution, the authors have included a collection of best practices largely developed based on common themes which emerged from a 2014 online survey of law library staff; follow-up correspondence with several survey respondents; and a review of case law and relevant literature within law librarianship and other fields. The solutions to the problems of disruptive patron interactions can most nearly be found by providing a library atmosphere of safety for patrons and staff; equality in the staff treatment of all library patrons; consistency and predictability in staff responses accomplished by flexibility not rigidity; and communication and transparency of both policies and service limitations. This paper provides practical strategies for attaining that ideal.
Date of Publication:
Jason S. Palmer, “The Millennials are Coming!”: Improving Self-Efficacy in Law Students Through Universal Design in Learning, 63 Clev. St. L. Rev. 675 (2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The Millennial generation has arrived in law school. This new generation of self-confident and extremely high-achieving learners merits a new interdisciplinary approach to legal education. Some institutions have explored formative assessments and regulated self-learning to improve academic success. Other universities have looked to universal design, specifically universal design in learning or universal design in instruction, as a mechanism for furthering educational goals for their students. All agree that a lack of self-efficacy can prevent Millennial students from overcoming challenges in their educational growth, and that high self-efficacy, the ability to put forth effort and persistence to successfully accomplish a goal, will lead to better learning outcomes and is a powerful predictor of educational success. None, however, have paired the theories of self-regulated learning and universal design in instruction as a vehicle to improve self-efficacy in the law school classroom. This article is the first to address the unique intersection of these learning theories and their potentially positive impact on self-efficacy for today’s learners.
Date of Publication:
Ann Piccard, Justiciability of All Human Rights: Scottish Independence As Redress for British Human Rights Abuses, 24 Fla. J. Int'l L. 333 (2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ashley Krenelka Chase, Watch Out for the Bus: Tales of Cross-Training, Teams, and Rotating Duties in an Academic Law Library, in 5Partnerships and New Roles in the 21st-Century Academic Library: Collaborating, Embedding, and Cross Training for the Future (Bradford Lee Eden ed., Creating the 21st-Century Academic Library, Rowman & Littlefield, 2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
James W. Fox, Book Review, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship. Kurt. T. Lash, 30 Const. Comment. 567 (2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
In this essay I review Kurt Lash’s The Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship. Lash has written perhaps the most important work to date on the background of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause. This essay summarizes the basic insights and arguments of the book and then presents a critique of it on two levels. First, it argues that the background of the Privileges or Immunities Clause is more ambiguous than Lash suggests and that this background does not support Lash’s rejection of natural rights interpretations of the Clause. Second, and more fundamentally, the essay argues that Lash — consistent with some other contemporary originalists — assumes an overly narrow concept of the historical public in his pursuit of the public meaning behind the Clause. Given the formal and informal exclusions of women and minorities from public discourse and decision-making, it is impossible to speak of a unitary “public.” We should consider instead how to identify and incorporate multiple publics and to consider what such a multi-public or counterpublic approach to historical meanings might look like.
Date of Publication:
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Corporate Democracy from Say on Pay to Say on Politics, 30 Const. Comment. 431 (2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The President of the Business Roundtable once infamously said that “corporations were never designed to be democracies…” American courts respectfully disagree and have repeatedly held that the democratic rights of shareholders are sacrosanct. The context for the Business Roundtable President’s comment was the battle over say on pay — a battle the Business Roundtable lost in the United States with the passage of the financial reform legislation known as Dodd-Frank.
As I will explain in this piece, courts’ robust conception of corporate democracy rights for shareholders should protect both shareholders’ ability to have a say on pay and say on politics. Say on pay is the practice in United States, among other nations, of mandating a non-binding shareholder vote on executive compensation at publicly traded firms. A shareholders’ say on politics does not yet exist in America. But theoretically, just as say on pay mandates shareholder democracy in the case of executive remuneration, say on politics would require shareholders to vote on corporate political spending. Binding say on politics votes already exist in the U.K.
Critiques of say on pay and say on politics have been couched as constitutional objections based on either the Tenth or First Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. But at their heart, these objections seem less rooted in the text of the Constitution and more inspired by a cribbed conception of shareholders’ corporate voting rights. To untangle who has the stronger legal argument requires a review of how American courts have conceptualized “corporate democracy.” I conclude that as framed by key courts such as the U.S. Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Delaware state courts, “corporate democracy” is a capacious enough concept to justify both shareholders’ say on pay and say on politics.
Date of Publication:
Elizabeth Ippolito Boals, State v. Sanchez: Case File and Teaching Guide (2nd ed., NITA, 2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.