Date of Publication:
AnnMarie Davis et al. (eds.), Florida Mediation Best Practices Handbook (2nd ed., Hillsborough County Bar Association, 2022)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Grant Christensen, Consenting to Criminal Jurisdiction in Tribal Court, 37 Criminal Justice 34 (2022)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Em Wright, Click It or Ticket, But Don’t Admit It? How Unrestrained Drivers and Passengers Take Us for a Ride, 73 Mercer L. Rev. 801 (2022)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Grant Christensen, The Extradition Clause and Indian Country, 97 N.D. L. Rev. 355 (2022)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This article looks at the enforceability of the Extradition Clause in the federal courts of the United States. In 1861 the Supreme Court held in Dennison that the federal courts could not be used to enforce a request made by one state governor to another state governor for the extradition of a suspected criminal under Article IV Section 1. In 1987 the Supreme Court reversed the Dennison decision and for the first time since the Civil War held that the federal judicial power includes the power to enforce the Extradition Clause. This article takes the position that federal judicial power is limited to cases where the state governor has both territorial and personal jurisdiction over the accused. When an individual is on an Indian reservation, even Article IV does not authorize the governor of a state to enter the reservation and return the accused subject to an extradition request. Article IV’s Extradition Clause provides a constitutional duty for the executive of one state to remit to the power of a sister state someone located within its borders and subject to its jurisdiction. Critical to the exercise of this power is the dual understanding that the individual sought must be both within the state territory and subject to the state’s jurisdiction. Indian country lies outside the general jurisdictional power of the states. States may not enter Indian country and remove persons found there absent cooperation with or permission from the Tribe. Doing so infringes upon the Tribe’s right to make its own laws and be governed by them.
Date of Publication:
Kristen David Adams, Understanding Philosophical Movements Law Review Editors May Encounter, in The Scribes Manual for Law Review Editors (Darby Dickerson and Brooke J. Bowman eds., Carolina Academic Press, 2022)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Darby Dickerson and Brooke J. Bowman (eds.), The Scribes Manual for Law Review Editors (Carolina Academic Press, 2022)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Darryl Wilson, Keeping Current-Property, 36 Probate and Property 10 (2022)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Anthony Palermo and Daniel L. Buchholz, Post-Tiara: Contracts Are Still King, 95 Florida Bar Journal 18 (2022)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This article analyzes a Florida Supreme Court case, as well as the precedent leading up to it and subsequent decisions, which raised important questions about the independent tort doctrine and economic loss rule in contract disputes. Although similar, these two principles are not identical, and they are often confused by litigants and courts alike. That confusion led in part to debate surrounding the contours and even survival of the independent tort doctrine following the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Tiara Condominium Association, Inc. v. Marsh and McLennan Companies, Inc., which limited the application of the economic loss rule. This article asserts, however, that the decision actually confirms the independent tort doctrine's continued application in Florida and further argues that that the doctrine rests on sound principles of efficiency and equity and should be endorsed and applied by Florida courts. The article also provides an overview of the distinction between the independent tort doctrine and economic loss rule, analyzes the court's decision and relevant precedent, and explains why the independent tort doctrine should remain a vital component of Florida contract law.
Date of Publication:
Anne E. Mullins, Book review, Transitioning from Practical Legal Writing to Academic Scholarship, review of Elizabeth Berenguer’s The Legal Scholar’s Guidebook, 19 Legal Comm. & Rhetoric: JAWLD 217 (2022)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Robyn Powell, Disability Reproductive Justice, 170 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1851 (2022)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The fragility of reproductive rights in the United States has never been so clear. From the Supreme Court’s recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, to a quickly growing number of states passing draconian state laws that drastically limit—and in some states, ban—access to safe and legal abortion care, reproductive freedom is under siege at every turn. This difficult reality has elevated the importance of reproductive rights to the forefront of many people’s consciousness. At the same time, the discourse concerning reproductive rights has been narrowly focused and has failed to recognize the scope of reproductive decisionmaking beyond abortion. In addition, the reproductive rights movement has traditionally overlooked the myriad other ways in which marginalized populations, including people with disabilities, experience reproductive oppression.
This Article responds to the contemporary besiege on reproductive freedom and the persistent reproductive oppression experienced by people with disabilities by proposing a vision to help activists, legal professionals, scholars, and policymakers conceive of and articulate the basic contours of a paradigm shift that supports the coalescence of the disability justice and reproductive justice movements. To do so, first the Article examines the origins of weaponizing sexuality and reproduction to subjugate disabled people in the United States. Drawing on legal scholarship and social science research, it then elucidates the scope of the problem by describing the social context and institutions that propagate the sexual and reproductive oppression of people with disabilities and highlights contemporary examples of such injustices. Thereafter, the Article introduces and explores the tenets of two complementary frameworks for analyzing and confronting the reproductive oppression of people with disabilities: disability justice and reproductive justice. Finally, guided by the tenets of disability justice and reproductive justice, it further develops a jurisprudential and legislative framework for achieving and delivering reproductive justice for people with disabilities.