Date of Publication:
Catherine J. Cameron, Illuminating the Iceberg: Brain Science and Punitive Damages in Libel Cases, 60 Tulsa L. Rev. 351 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner, Sackett and the Five Stages of Grief, 38 Tulane Envtl. L. Journal 263 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Rebecca C. Morgan, Research Handbook on Law, Society, and Ageing (Reviews), 16 Journal of Aging Law & Policy 86 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Rebecca C. Morgan, Older Adults in the Courtroom, CTLA Forum (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Peter Lake, William A. Kaplin: The Master Cartographer of Higher Education Law, 50 J.C. & U.L. 11 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Stephanie Vaughan, A Symbiotic Relationship: Strengthening Advocacy Skills while Utilizing Teaching Assistants to Modernize the Classroom, 12 Stetson J. Advoc. & L. 125 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Legal Research and Writing (LRW) courses are essential aspects of legal education. Though LRW courses vary throughout law schools, all courses share a common component: they teach skills that are not taught in traditional, doctrinal courses but are critical to research, writing, and advocacy. By being a skills-based course, LRW is typically measured through multiple assignments that contribute to a student’s final grade. LRW assignments can include memorandums of law, motions, appellate briefs, and oral arguments, to name a few. LRW courses, therefore, come with additional student workload that generally does not exist in doctrinal courses. Accordingly, student success in the course requires “prompt and individualized feedback, mentoring, and one-on-one conferences.”
The additional student workload inevitably requires a heavier professor workload — a workload that can be reduced through the use of technology and teaching assistants (TAs). While law students today grew up with technology and are comfortable using it, many professors do not share the same experiences. The disconnect between professors and technology inevitably means the professor’s approach to teaching will be outdated. Additionally, modern law students who grew up in a digital world expect immediate feedback on their work product. They are searching for instant gratification, whether it be via email, texting, or the classroom’s tech platform page. Without a superior knowledge of technology, professors — especially LRW professors — will struggle to keep up with the demands of modern students. This is where TAs prove to be essential. TAs can bridge the technology divide and assist professors in modernizing the classroom to meet the demands of today’s technology-driven students. TAs also benefit from this symbiotic relationship by refining their skills and becoming well-rounded advocates. This article discusses the rise of technology in the classroom following the pandemic, the ways in which TAs can minimize the technology learning curve for the benefit of the classroom, general guidance on selecting ideal TAs to best ease the burden on professor’s workload, and how TAs benefit from the relationship.
Date of Publication:
Darryl Wilson, Keeping Current – Property, 39 Probate and Property 18 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Grant Christensen, Tribal Courts Are Courts of General Jurisdiction, 77 Fla. L. Rev. 679 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Twenty years ago the Supreme Court misread its precedents and took a short cut to do what was “simpler” instead of what was right. It determined that tribal courts are not courts of general jurisdiction without examining the origins of tribal judicial power. Writing for the majority in Nevada v. Hicks, Justice Scalia concluded that in order to find that tribal courts were able to interpret federal law the Court would have to “attribute to tribal courts jurisdiction that is not apparent.” But power often exists even if it is not apparent at first glance. Unwilling to do even a cursory examination to determine whether tribal courts might nonetheless possess general jurisdiction, the Court decided that it would be “surely [ ] simpler… to conclude that tribal courts cannot entertain” claims arising under federal law. This article objects to the legal principle that tribes cannot exercise their inherent sovereign powers because it would “simpler” for the Supreme Court.
In Hicks, the Court abdicated its responsibility by not engaging in an analysis of the origins of the judicial power exercised by tribal courts. Under the principles of inherent sovereignty it is the tribal sovereign and not the Supreme Court that controls the jurisdiction of tribal courts. If a tribal government vests in its judicial department the authority to interpret federal law, then the tribal court maintains that power until withdrawn by the tribal sovereign. This article further argues that the Court in Hicks exceeded its Article III exercise of the judicial power to attempt to limit – against the will of the tribal sovereign – the general jurisdiction of tribal courts. It concludes by encouraging tribal governments to decide for themselves whether they want their courts to interpret federal law. If the tribal sovereign assigns that power to its courts, then tribal courts should begin affirmatively exercising general jurisdiction despite the Hicks precedent.
Date of Publication:
Kristen David Adams and Brooke J. Bowman, The Banks Case: A Model for Persuasive Advocacy When Arguing Open Questions of Law, 54 Stetson L. Rev. 237 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Roy Balleste, Low Orbit Blues: The Noir in Cybersecurity, in Global Governance of Low Earth Orbit Satellites (Joanna Kulesza and Berna Akcali Gur eds., Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.