State v. Sanchez: Case File Book
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Elizabeth Ippolito Boals, State v. Sanchez: Case File (3rd ed., NITA, 2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
2024
The Impact of Ableism on the Sexual, Reproductive, and Parenting Rights of People with Intellectual Disabilities Book Chapter
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Robyn Powell, The Impact of Ableism on the Sexual, Reproductive, and Parenting Rights of People with Intellectual Disabilities, in Intellectual Disabilities and Autism: Ethics and Practice (Andria Bianchi and Janet A. Vogt eds., Springer, 2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
"This chapter surveys the impact of ableism on the sexual, reproductive, and parenting rights of people with intellectual disabilities (ID). Entrenched within societal attitudes and structures, ableism creates barriers that hinder the full realization of fundamental human rights. First, the chapter explains ableism, its adverse effects on people with ID, and how ableism lays the groundwork for eugenic ideologies and practices. Then, it examines how ableism constrains the sexual lives of people with ID, exploring pervasive stigmas, stereotypes, and misconceptions that perpetuate their marginalization and disempowerment in matters of sexuality. Next, it explores ableism’s influence on access to reproductive health services and decision-making autonomy. Thereafter, the chapter analyzes challenges and discriminatory practices confronted by people with ID in relation to parenting. Following a critical examination of inequities, the chapter concludes by offering recommendations to dismantle ableism’s impact on the sexual, reproductive, and parenting rights of people with ID by transforming laws, policies, and practices."
Making Employment Agreements for Success Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Peter Lake, Making Employment Agreements for Success, Inside Higher Ed (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The Optimal Allocation of Scarce Resources: Three Fundamental Theorems in Property Law Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Will Bunting, The Optimal Allocation of Scarce Resources: Three Fundamental Theorems in Property Law, 76 Baylor L. Rev. 576 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This Article contends that the scope of the Coase Theorem has been extended too far by those who have interpreted the Theorem as setting forth a powerful argument against public intervention in private markets. The Coase Theorem can be viewed as a decentralization result only if certain restrictive conditions hold true. First, the Coasean prediction that the private exchange of state-enforced private property rights will yield the optimal use of scarce resources in the absence of transaction costs is correct, conditional upon the assumption that a random grant of private property rights is the socially optimal resource allocation rule. This assumption might not hold true, however. This Article provides three economic reasons for why the political process might select a socially suboptimal allocation rule-what this paper terms political transaction costs. Second, the final allocation of scarce resources depends upon the initial wealth endowment of the transacting parties. These wealth endowments, however, might be the product of an inefficient labor market. This Article identifies three sources of market failure in labor markets and contends that these inefficiencies must be fully considered in any broader assessment of the Coase Theorem as a decentralization result.
Keeping Current – Property Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Darryl Wilson, Keeping Current – Property, 38 Probate and Property 14 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Post West Virginia v. EPA the Administrative State’s Door is Still Ajar Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Jaclyn Lopez, Post West Virginia v. EPA the Administrative State’s Door is Still Ajar, 98 St. John's L. Rev. 653 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which carves out a new rulemaking standard for Congress and federal agencies, may be as significant for its articulation of the Major Questions Doctrine (“MQD”) as it is for its treatment of Article III standing and jurisprudential mootness. This Essay examines lower courts’ subsequent treatment of West Virginia v. EPA to add dimension to the inquiry of whether the new MQD has upended the administrative state or if it is merely another arrow in the quiver for judges that prefer a weaker federal government or nondelegation altogether. It also explores whether the opinion, in reaching its MQD merits, redefined the contours of standing and mootness jurisprudence.
Forward: Rewriting the Script Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Robyn Powell, Forward: Rewriting the Script, 77 Okla. L. Rev. 1 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Till Death do us Part(ner) – Imputed Fraud Liability Concerns for Spouses Following the Supreme Court’s Decision in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Theresa J. Pulley Radwan, Till Death do us Part(ner) – Imputed Fraud Liability Concerns for Spouses Following the Supreme Court’s Decision in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 59 Ga. L. Rev. 149 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a decades-long debate regarding the ability to discharge liability imputed upon a debtor for another person's fraudulent conduct. In Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, the Court held that the Bankruptcy Code prohibits discharge of any fraud liability-even when the debtor did not participate in the fraud but was married to and engaged in business with the person who did.
Scholars have long recognized the challenge of this type of business-partner imputed fraud liability in the context of a marital relationship. Creating a partnership merely requires intent of the parties to engage in business together, without any
required documentation or filing with the state. As such, determination of the existence of a partnership relies on a case-by-case determination to discern the true intention of the putative business partners. The marital context adds a new challenge to this determination, as couples frequently share money and help each other in ways that might be construed as a business partnership. The Bartenwerfer decision makes the determination more fraught with consequences, since the
non-defrauding business partner faces not only liability under state law but liability that cannot be discharged even in the last-resort option of bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy courts historically look at the state law standard for creation of a partnership, but the courts lack a clear set of guidelines to provide structure to the partnership determination. The tax courts and the Internal Revenue Service have faced similar issues in determining the tax liabilities and social security eligibility of spouses potentially engaged in business together, as well as in determining the existence of a business for tax-purposes. Though rooted in tax issues, the cases
start at the same place as any determination of a partnership: the intent of the parties to engage in business together. At the heart of these tax cases lie a trilogy of Supreme Court decisions from the mid-twentieth century and a more modern Supreme Court case. These decisions and rules outline factors to consider in finding the existence of a business, and they provide a more detailed framework for bankruptcy courts to determine the existence of a partnership among married couples or other family members. This article considers these cases to build a framework for determining liability and non-dischargeability in bankruptcy cases.
Taking Tokens Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Andrew D. Appleby, Taking Tokens, 91 Tenn. L. Rev. 321 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Tokenization began a fundamental transformation of our laws of ownership, but this transformation is curbed by a lag in the laws of taxation. This Article provides the theory and doctrinal tools to mend this disconnect. Tokenization provides a method to prove and transfer ownership of valuable assets such as art, real property, and equity interests in all types of entities. The tokenization process creates a nominal token that represents the legal ownership rights in the underlying asset. The token, and thus the ownership of the underlying asset, can then be verified and transferred in a process that may be more efficient than doing so with the underlying asset directly.
Blockchain-based tokenization promises to increase efficiency exponentially, which will reduce transaction costs and allow for greater market participation. Blockchain-based tokenization also inherently obscures ownership and transfers of the underlying asset, which may produce significant tax benefits for the asset owner but erode the state and local tax base. State and local governments impose taxes on the ownership and transfer of property. These taxes typically apply only to tangible property, not intangible property. If ownership of tangible property is transferred via an intangible token, such as a blockchain-based non-fungible token (“NFT”), significant transaction taxes may be avoided. In addition, determining which taxing jurisdiction has the statutory and constitutional basis to impose tax on the tokenized transaction is problematic.
This Article answers the crucial tax questions that arise with blockchain-based asset tokenization. First, this Article examines foundational tokenization principles, which implicate many fields of law. Next, this Article analyzes blockchain-based tokenization in several important contexts, focusing on the tax implications of each. In conclusion, this Article resolves jurisdictional and constitutional challenges, and provides a normative approach for taxing blockchain-based tokenized assets.
Crossing the Threshold with Apples, Potatoes, and Limes: Using the “Grocer’s Dilemma” to Introduce Law Students to Malleability in the Law Article (Online)
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Kirsten K. Davis, Crossing the Threshold with Apples, Potatoes, and Limes: Using the “Grocer’s Dilemma” to Introduce Law Students to Malleability in the Law (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The Grocer’s Dilemma is a legal writing (and thinking) assignment that can help undergraduate students interested in law school as well as first-year law students beginning their legal study better understand how legal rules are not fixed but are instead malleable—uncertain, flexible, and somewhat indeterminate. It asks students to consider, based on a grocer’s preference, where to place produce inside a grocery store. In this process, students must consider “precedents”—other produce—that contribute to the rule. Those precedents, however, do not have a fixed meaning. Instead, their meaning is malleable.
Malleability is a threshold concept in the law. As such, when students become aware of and more comfortable with the concept of malleability, they can begin moving through the liminality of legal education and begin their journey across the threshold between legal novice and lawyer-expert. The Grocer’s Dilemma assignment focuses students on a nonlegal context for examining malleability, making it easier for students to focus on the complexities of reasoning about a malleable rule rather than the legal rules themselves.