Search

The ability of a corporation to exercise constitutional protections has been rife with uncertainty and change since the conception of corporate rights came into existence. The history and rapid development of the corporation, combined with the misapplied and misunderstood “corporate personhood” theory, have resulted in an almost unintelligible hodgepodge of corporate constitutional applications. Similarly, the concept of the right to bear arms has equally been muddled and applied very differently at varying times and locations since before the establishment of the Second Amendment. This Article attempts to clarify how an alternative to the “corporate personhood” theory, namely the “purpose” theory is increasingly relied on by the Supreme Court to more consistently and transparently extend or restrict constitutional rights. Purpose analysis provides a sound legal basis to conclude that the Second Amendment should also be applied to corporations. In recent years, the Supreme Court has dramatically increased the rights of corporations. Simultaneously the Court has also significantly augmented the right of Americans to possess and publicly carry a vast array of firearms. However, the Court has never said whether this right is one possessed by corporations. Nevertheless, the reasoning in many cases generally dealing with corporate rights and gun rights, including the Court’s most recent Second Amendment case, point to the answer that corporations are entitled to the right to bear arms. While there is an understandable amount of antipathy on the part of many scholars to expanding Second Amendment rights in the manner that the 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen did, a corporate right to bear armsdoes not reflect the same risks discussed in Bruen. Currently, there is a split in whether lower courts have held in favor of corporations (or other collectives) having Second Amendment rights, and this disagreement could and should eventually come before the Supreme Court. Whether one agrees with the outcome of Bruen or not, purpose analysis, which entails judicial examination of the purpose behind particular constitutional provisions to determine their boundaries, dictates that corporations should have Second Amendment rights. Indeed, corporations’ interests in these rights are rooted in and further the key purposes of the Second Amendment: self-defense, protection of third parties, and defense of property. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Arbitration has dominated the landscape of the resolution of international commercial disputes (that is, private disputes involving transnational connections). Nevertheless, the last fifteen years have witnessed a proliferation in the establishment of new commercial courts in several countries, with the aim of attracting international commercial disputes. This article makes the novel argument that such attempts are unlikely to render adjudication an attractive alternative to arbitration. For the new international commercial courts to fully realize their potential and produce a sustainable market of adjudication, some mechanism is needed to secure the enforceability of jurisdiction clauses and the judgments delivered by courts in other jurisdictions. Although such mechanism is provided by the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, this convention has failed to gain international support. This is puzzling given that this convention adopts the same principles that enabled the success of the 1958 New York Arbitration Convention—namely enforcing party choice of forum and facilitating enforcement of the resolution’s outcome. This article provides the first attempt to analyze the reasons for this failure. To this end, it compares the political and legal conditions under which the two conventions were conceived, showing how the differences in these conditions have led to lower international acceptance of the Hague Convention. This article supports this analysis by focusing on the most recent ratification of the Hague Convention by the UK. We advance the novel argument that this case study demonstrates the important role played by the legal community in the ratification process. We show that, ironically, the UK’s decision to quit the EU in order to restore national sovereignty was a major reason leading to its ratification of the Hague Convention, thus giving up fundamental principles of common law that had granted English courts broad discretion as to whether to enforce jurisdiction clauses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public policy permeates the legal principles of a state and its ruling government. The justification of public policy is topical to the ethics and canons acknowledged by that state. These values are determined by the applicable political, social, economic, religious, and legal systems, which differ among states. As public policy usually best illuminates the broad area of government laws, regulations, provincial ordinances, and court decisions, the standards creating public policy alter as states develop. The motif of public policy is critical when the question of enforcement of arbitral awards suffice. There is no definite meaning of the term in the famous Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Arbitration Convention) to enforce foreign arbitral awards. Hence, this paper explores and traces some contemporary trends in defense of public policy as an exception to the enforcement of arbitral awards worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article deals with the writing requirement of the arbitration clause under the New York Convention (the "Convention"). The discussion has been triggered by the recent Czech Supreme Court decision on the formal validity of an arbitration clause contained in an exchange of emails. The author first recalls the drafting history of the Convention and rationale behind the writing requirement. Then he analyses its interpretation in the practice of court before and after the 2006 UNCITRAL Recommendation, which suggested extending the interpretation to modern forms of communication such as email. The main part of the article closely scrutinizes the Czech Supreme Court's decision on the issue. The Court followed the 2006 Recommendation and the majority of its foreign counterparts. However, it also had to deal with the question of whether an email has to be accompanied by a qualified electronic signature for the written form to be met, as this is (unfortunately) the Court's requirement when it comes to relations governed by Czech law. Fortunately, the Court has taken an international approach looking both to foreign courts' practice and to its own case-law under other international conventions such as the CISG or the CMR. Thus it has arrived at the conclusion that the writing requirement under the Convention is met also in the case of an arbitration agreement contained in an exchange of simple emails. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines whether the New York statute, the Dignity for All Students Act (DASA) is an effective tool in reducing incidents of student harassment and in generating litigation. Topics covered include the amendments made to the New York Education law as brought about by the DASA, details of the Eskenazi versus Connetquot Central School District case and the decision in the Motta ex rel. Motta versus Eldred Central School District case.

In its recent Ellis and Hudson decisions, the Supreme Court imposed new substantive restrictions and procedural requirements on states that authorize, and public employee unions that utilize, agency shop fees. Focusing on New York State, this study analyzes the consequences for the collection and expenditure of agency fees of the Supreme Court's new emphasis on the First Amendment basis for dissenting employees' rights. The author finds that Ellis and Hudson cast doubt on the constitutionality of some current agency fee practices. He concludes that New York's Public Employment Relations Board will have to take a more active role in policing agency fee standards and procedures than it has until now if the agency fee in New York is to withstand First Amendment scrutiny. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the LeGrand test, the current standard used in New York for determining whether to admit expert testimony on eyewitness identifications. Topics discussed include the history of the LeGrand Test in the Court of Appeals of New York, the People v. McCullough case and its departure from previous applications of the LeGrand test, and a proposal for trial court judges to admit relevant expert testimony when the only evidence are unreliable eyewitness identifications.

The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. The article discusses the case of Dior v. Milton where the New York State Supreme Court ruled that joint legal action to prevent style piracy was not a restraint of trade under the Sherman Act or under New York State antitrust law. United States v. Insurance Board of Cleveland is discussed in terms of illegal boycotting. Morton Salt Company et al. v. United States is discussed as it relates to price fixing.

The article discusses the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department's ruling in the 2014 case In re New York v. Raul L. which deals with the legal aspects of a searching inquiry requirement in civil commitment proceedings involving sex offenders. New York's Sex Offenders Management and Treatment Act (SOMTA) is addressed, along with the state's Mental Hygiene Law and defendant Raul L.'s waiver of his statutory right to counsel.

The article discusses the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department's ruling in the 2014 case Matter of Nelson v. City of New York which deals with the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment, the legal aspects of government takings in America, and private property rights in the country. Property owner Paula Nelson's legal rights are examined in relation to the de facto taking of her property by the enactment of the 1997 Watershed Memorandum Agreement in New York.

The article offers information on decision of the New York County Supreme Court of New York on the case Matter of R.B. v. Department of Education of the City of New York. Topics discussed include claims of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, admission process of students on the basis of donations in the public school system, and the need of education reform in the public school system.

The article discusses various aspects of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the case United States v. Windsor which deals with the constitutionality of the nation's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and its potential impact on marriage equality for same-sex couples in America, focusing on state laws and prohibitions on same-sex marriage in places such as New York. Federalism, due process, and equal protection in America are mentioned. A heightened level of judicial scrutiny is also examined.

The article discusses the court case Krystal G. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn filed in the Supreme Court of New York in Kings County, New York. Topics discussed include a lawsuit filed against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn by G. Vivian and F. Juan, parents of plaintiff G. Krystal for allegedly negligently hiring, supervising and retaining former assistant pastor, filing of summary judgment motion by the defendant and the court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The article discusses delay rental payments law in New York (State), Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia and describes the developments made in theses states with regard to interpretation of oil and gas leases. It reflects on Pennsylvania court's decision in Hite v. Falcon Partners that payment of delay rental under an oil and gas lease cannot extend the length of the lease beyond the primary term.

The article discusses New York, New York's Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule (Soda Ban) which was scheduled to go into effect on March 12, 2013, focusing on alternatives to soda taxes and the New York County Supreme Court's ruling in a 2013 case which struck down the Soda Ban on economic policy and constitutional grounds. A reported violation of the separation of powers doctrine is mentioned, along with obesity prevention policies and fundamental values such as fairness and autonomy.

The article focuses on adjournments in contemplation of dismissal in misdemeanor court and examines three city courts' dispositions in misdemeanor domestic violence cases in New York State. It mentions that adjournment in contemplation of dismissal treats defendants as de facto guilty in exchange for a contingent promise to withhold conviction and permanently seal public records of the charges.

An essay is presented on transferable development rights (TDRs) and rezoning as of January 2013, focusing on an analysis of the various restrictions contained in New York's Zoning Resolution in regards to landowners rights and property development projects. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in a case involving New York, New York's Landmark Preservation Act is also examined. Several areas of New York, New York are mentioned, including the Special West Chelsea District.

The article focuses on the latest developments in New York over arbitration and awards to the parties in their favor. It analyzes the judgments in cases including Sojitz Corp. v. Prithvi Information Solutions Ltd. and Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd. with reference to jurisdictions of foreign parties and the power of New York courts. It further discusses the subjection of pre-award attachments to the foreign assets in possession of New York entities.

The article discusses the New York court case People v. Devone which explores the use of a canine by police officers to sniff for drugs. The court's analysis was noticeably different from the approach conducted by the U.S. Supreme court on police using canines for sniffing in detecting drugs. Meanwhile, the increased use of canines could trigger the constitutional boundaries of the near decision of the case that could lead to a more workable definition of founded suspicion.

The article examines the distinction between claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under the standards of Federal in New York. It explores the history of ineffective counsel rulings in the country, together with an evaluation of the methodology, reasoning and integrity of the various approaches. It mentions several Supreme Court cases that are relevant to the issue being presented including Powell v. Alabama, Gideon v. Wainwright and McMann v. Richardson.

The article looks at some decisions given by U.S. supreme court on cases related to allegations of unethical conduct in the land use decision making process. It discusses a New York case, wherein the plaintiff's application for the dedication of a road was denied by a town board. It explains a case focusing on allegations of bias, in which the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio solicited some contribution from the plaintiff and to assist the East Toledo Community Center.

The article presents a study which was carried out to analyze dissents and dissenting justices of New York State's Second Department. It mentions the hierarchy of judgments which is passed from one judge to the other in the state courts. It informs that the study takes an empirical look at various courts from 2000 to 2010. The study compares the tendencies of these courts with respect to the types of cases analyzed.

The article presents a study which was carried out to analyze dissents and dissenting justices of New York State's First Department. It mentions the hierarchy of judgments which is passed from one judge to the other in the state courts. It informs that the study takes an empirical look at various courts from 2000 to 2010. The study compares the tendencies of these courts with respect to the types of cases analyzed.

The article analyzes the New York Court of Appeals' two blight condemnation decisions. It describes the background of the Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp. (NYSUDC) and Goldstein v. NYSUDC. It discusses Kaur and Goldstein's treatment of the federal constitutional standard for pretextual takings. It argues that Goldstein and Kaur made it easier for well-connected interest groups to use blight condemnations to transfer property to themselve

This Note examines the conflict between New York State and the Seneca Nation of Indians regarding the taxation of cigarette sales to non-Indians on Indian reservations. In 1994, the United States Supreme Court found New York's taxation scheme facially permissible without providing boundaries or guidance for the state 's subsequent enforcement. Seventeen years after the Court's decision, no taxes have been collected on these sales. The issue involves conflicting spheres of federal, state, and tribal control. From 1965 to 1994, the Supreme Court balanced these competing interests, creating precedent that has failed to provide a definitive solution to this crisis. The Note examines the background of these decisions, the history of the treaties between the Seneca tribe and the United States, and the shift in federal Indian policy towards promoting a government-to-government relationship between the United States government and Indian tribes. Lastly, this Note proposes a solution modeled on the example of Washington State. Facing a crisis analogous to that of New York, Washington created a lasting solution to its taxation crisis by forging a relationship of trust between the state, its agencies, and the Indian tribes. This Note advocates that New York follow the same path and create cigarette tax compacts between New York and the Indian tribes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses various 2009 special education rulings in the U.S. to provide legal understanding for the lawyers of parents, administrators, and school districts. It relates on how schools must treat the visitation rights of parents or an independent evaluator based on the case of the School Board of Manatee County, Florida. Moreover, the ruling over the case involving the New York City Department of Education provides insights on how a child can be classified as a socially maladjusted.

The article focuses on the 30-year history and role of "Pace Law Review," by Pace University of Law in legal education. It states that the periodical was published in 1980 which aims to contribute in the legal education with articles regarding international disputes, rule-making of states, and use of history in decisions of the court. It states that law reviews help law student in their education and provide experiences such as reading, writing, and editing which are important for lawyers. It adds that "Pace Law Review" will continue to provide valuable contribution to the profession and helps students prepare for their career.

New York may have just become a great place to be a judgment creditor. In the summer of 2009, the Court of Appeals of New York handed down its decision in Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd. In Koehler, the court upheld a turnover order directing a garnishee to transfer a nonresident judgment debtor's assets, deposited in a Bermuda bank, into New York. Under Koehler, assets anywhere in the world may now be garnishable in New York so long as the garnishee is subject to the state's jurisdiction. This decision greatly broadens New York courts' power to enforce judgments by reaching property located outside of New York. Accordingly, the decision is an incredible victory for judgment creditors, yet a serious defeat for judgment debtors. Because of New York's status as a financial and corporate capital--and the concomitant number of institutions doing business within the state--this decision has a potentially far-reaching impact. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Koehler decision raises some serious constitutional and policy concerns. As some commentators fear, the decision may ultimately turn New York courts into a "mecca" for judgment creditors seeking to reach assets located anywhere in the world. This Comment seeks to explore the issues raised by the Koehler decision. In doing so, this Comment analyzes theories of due process and state power in the realm of postjudgment garnishments, This Comment ultimately concludes that the Koehler decision was correctly decided, particularly because it will afford judgment creditors an incredibly useful tool in satisfying their judgments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article looks at the implications of the ruling of the New York Court of Appeals in the case Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties on October 22, 2009 for low-income victims of predatory equity in New York City. The court held that the move by owners to remove thousands of units from rent regulation and charge market rates while receiving tax abatements from the city was inappropriate. In the author's view, predatory equity practices will not be successfully ended by the ruling. The phenomenon of predatory equity as a model for multifamily apartment transactions is explained. He argues that legislation, political pressure and market forces are more effective in ending predatory equity than any court decision.

In October 1984, the Burger Court set forth an exception to the Miranda doctrine in New York v. Quarles permitting officers to intentionally abstain from administering Miranda warnings to suspects where a threat to the safety of the public or officers exists. However, latent ambiguity arising from the Quarles decision authored by Justice William Rehnquist has resulted in a split among the federal courts of appeals as to what constitutes a "public safety threat." Some courts broadly extend the Quarles exception to inherently dangerous situations, including the threat of an officer mishandling an undiscovered weapon. Other courts narrowly apply Quarles to exigent circumstances where there is actual evidence that a suspect or other third party could inflict immediate harm to officers or the public. As the only exception permitting an intentional violation of Miranda, this circuit split concerning the scope of the Quarles exception poses a substantial threat to the ongoing role of Miranda in the criminal justice system. In light of this conflict and the possible repercussions, this Note endorses the narrow approach as the most consistent with the language and intent of Quarles. It further proposes a formal, three-prong test for applying the Quarles exception that requires officers to have actual knowledge of an immediate threat, with all pre-Miranda questioning of a suspect objectively evaluated to ensure that it is narrowly tailored to that threat. Finally, this Note concludes that the proposed three-prong test is the best method to ensure uniformity in the application of Quarles and to prevent the exception from threatening the integrity of the Miranda doctrine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]