Date of Publication:
Grant Christensen et al., Tribal Court Litigation, in Recent Developments in Business and Corporate Litigation (American Bar Association, Business Law Section, 2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Anne E. Mullins, Source-Relational Ethos in Judicial Opinions, 54 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1089 (2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Myron Moskovitz et al., Cases and Problems in Criminal Procedure: The Police (Carolina Academic Press, 2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Anne E. Mullins, Opportunity in the Age of Alternative Facts, 58 Washburn L.J. 577 (2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Theresa J. Pulley Radwan, Really–You Shouldn’t Have: How Gift Cards Are Not Such a Gift in Bakruptcy, 49 Uniform Commercial Code Law Journal (2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Steven Lubet and Elizabeth Ippolito Boals, A Guide for Expert Witnesses and the Lawyers Who Examine Them (4th ed., NITA, 2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner et al., Advocating for Science: Amici Curiae Brief of Wetland and Water Scientists in Support of the Clean Water Rule, 39 Wetlands 403 (2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The Trump administration has proposed replacing the Clean Water Rule, a 2015 regulation that defined the statutory term "waters ofthe United States" to clarify the geographic jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. Since its promulgation, the Clean Water Rule has been subjected to numerous judicial challenges. We submitted an amici curiae brief to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, explaining why the Clean Water Rule, and its definition of "waters of the United States," is scientifically sound. The definition of "waters of the United States" is a legal determination informed by science. The best available science supports the Clean Water Rule’s categorical treatment of tributaries because compelling scientific evidence demonstrates that tributaries significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of traditional navigable waters (primary waters). Similarly, the best available science supports the Clean Water Rule’s categorical treatment of adjacent waters based on geographic proximity. Compelling scientific evidence demonstrates that waters within 100 ft of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of primary waters, as do waters within 100-year floodplains and waters within 1500 ft of high tide lines of tidally influenced primary waters or OHWMs of the Great Lakes. This review article is adapted from that amici brief.
Date of Publication:
Rebecca Kihslinger et al., In-Lieu Fee Mitigation: Review of Program Instruments and Implementation Across the Country (Environmental Law Institute, 2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Nationwide, in-lieu fee (ILF) programs provide a significant percentage of the compensatory mitigation available to offset permitted impacts to aquatic resources. This comprehensive report outlines the range of practice in ILF mitigation and describes innovative approaches across the country. The aim of this report is to support the development of effective mitigation programs by enhancing the capacity of state/local/tribal governments and others to develop or oversee ILF programs.
Date of Publication:
Ashley Krenelka Chase, Neutralizing Access to Justice: Criminal Defendants’ Access to Justice in a Net Neutrality Information World, 84 Mo. L. Rev. 323–70 (2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This Article examines net neutrality and its impact on criminal defendants’ ability to access the courts — and justice — through access to legal information. Research in the American legal system has moved largely online, and print resources are becoming increasingly expensive and, therefore, scarcer. The move to online legal research presents difficult issues in light of the recent demise of net neutrality: If meaningful and speedy access to the Internet becomes dependent upon being able to afford an Internet “fast lane,” users will be divided into the haves and the have-nots. Criminal defendants will surely fall into the latter category, rendering their access to justice completely non-existent.
This Article will examine the legislation, regulations, and cases that brought net neutrality to the attention of the American public. It will examine how net neutrality and access to information are related, particularly in the criminal justice system. It will discuss the United States Supreme Court decisions that have impacted criminal defendants and the methods that defendants use to seek the justice and access to the courts. In detailing how the demise of net neutrality will directly harm the millions of Americans who are currently impacted by the criminal justice system — either as a defendant or as a family member or friend of one — suggestions will be made to ensure that criminal defendants retain access to justice.
Date of Publication:
Louis J. Virelli and David S. Rubenstein, Supreme Court News, 44 Administrative & Regulatory Law News 24 (2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.