When Detroit filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy on July 18, 2013, it became the largest U.S. city by population to do so. Once known as the “Paris of the West” and the home of America’s lucrative automotive industry, Detroit filed … Continue reading
Commonwealth v. Vacher, 469 Mass. 425 (2014)
On December 16, 2008, sixteen year-old Jordan Mendes’s body was found burning in a pit in Hyannis. Mendes was stabbed in the neck and face twenty-one times, and was shot in the chest. The previous day, he went to his half-brother Charlie’s home on Arrowhead Drive after school. The defendant, Robert Vacher, was dropped off at Charlie’s home with Charlie and John R. around the same time as Jordan. That evening, Charlie arranged to test drive a black Nissan Maxima that a classmate was selling for $11,000. Charlie, John R., and the defendant test drove the vehicle and had it in their possession for approximately four hours, returning it at 8:00 p.m. At that time, Jordan’s friend Diana had expected to see him at the Arrowhead Drive house; he did not arrive, and she telephoned him throughout the night but was ultimately unable to reach him. The next morning, Diana drove Charlie and the defendant to a car dealership in Hyannis, where they purchased a silver BMW for $10,995 in cash. Charlie, John R., and the defendant were later seen at a gas station with the BMW and a red gasoline can.
Jordan’s grandmother became concerned about his whereabouts because she had not seen him since the previous day. She and Jordan’s sister went to look for him, ultimately arriving at a place in the woods where Jordan and his sister often played as children. Jordan’s grandmother and sister noticed a fire burning in a pit, and found Jordan’s body at the bottom. A certified accelerant detection dog twice alerted to the presence of gasoline.
The New England Law Review is happy to announce that Volume 48, Book 3 is now available! You can see the issue here.
Book 3 is a symposium issue. For information about our Fall 2013 Symposium, Benchmarks: Evaluating Measurements of Judicial Productivity, visit the event page here. Additionally, a complete transcript of the live Twitter discussion is available.
Stay tuned for information about our second symposium issue, which will also be available soon!
Gail J. Hupper, a Visiting Scholar at Harvard Law School, focuses on research concerning the evolution of the post-graduate legal education in the United States. Her article Educational Ambivalence: The Rise of a Foreign-Student Doctorate in Law will be featured at the New England Law Review’s Fall Paper Symposium on November 5, 2014.
Gail Hupper received her Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Economy from Williams College and was awarded the Graves Essay Prize for study of the Social Security system. She earned her Juris Doctorate from Columbia Law School and was an Editor of the Columbia Law Review. She is admitted to practice law in both Massachusetts and New York.
The New England Law Review Fall Paper Symposium will be held on November 5th at 4:00 p.m. in the Cherry Room at New England Law | Boston. It will showcase Professor Gail Hupper’s article Educational Ambivalence: The Rise of a Foreign-Student Doctorate in Law. Professor Hupper is a Visiting Scholar at Harvard Law School, and her article explores the evolution of the Doctor of the Science of Law (J.S.D.) and Doctor of Juridical Science (S.J.D.) programs. Although originally designed for graduates of United States law schools, these programs are now primarily intended for students who obtained their initial legal education outside of the United States.
Professor Hupper explores some of the inherent tensions in United States legal education, as well as the struggle between academics and professional training. Her article is the third part of a study that looks at the history of the S.J.D., a degree primarily meant to train professors and other legal scholars, and how the degree can contribute to legal concepts both inside and out of the United States.
Our keynote speaker will, of course, be Professor Hupper. The other speakers are:
- Professor Paulo Barrozo, Boston College Law School
- Professor Carole Silver, Northwestern University School of Law
- Gordon Silverstein, Assistant Dean for Graduate Programs at Yale Law School
Please join us Wednesday, November 5 at 4:00pm in the Cherry Room. For more information, including profiles of all our speakers, you can view the Law Review Symposium page here or view additional information on New England Law | Boston’s website here.
The highly publicized Newtown, Connecticut mass shooting reignited national debate regarding mental health services and what legislatures can and should do about them. Recent legislation—namely the Murphy Bill—was introduced in response to such incidences; however, mental health treatment in the United States remains a hotly contested issue. The debate largely turns on the competing aims of mental health treatment: (1) the government’s interest in preventing dangerous outbursts, and (2) the states’ parens patrie interest in the health and well-being of persons with mental illnesses. How do these seemingly mutually exclusive goals fit within a statutory framework, and how does the Murphy Bill fare?
In his article Perspectives on Outpatient Commitment, Richard C. Boldt aims to provide guidance on the first question, and critiques legislation similar to the Murphy Bill for encouraging states to make greater use of outpatient civil commitment. This Article, which will be featured in the New England Law Review’s Volume 49, Book 1, asserts that legislation aimed at effectively treating mental health and preventing future violence will only succeed with adequate funding, proper implementation, and full appreciation of the cost-benefit analysis regarding commitment versus individual liberties.
The seeming simplicity of the facts of most slip-and-fall cases belie the increasingly complex and amoebic set of new rules which govern them. The modern personal injury practitioner must keep abreast of these changes if she hopes to adequately represent an injured customer or defend the owner of the premises where the injury took place. As the methods in which customers and business owners engage in commerce have evolved, the law has, albeit slowly, attempted to evolve with these methods to preserve the rights of business owners and customers in the event of an injury.
Bill Brekka examines one such evolution in slip-and-fall cases in Massachusetts in Extending The Mode of Operation Approach Beyond the Self-Service Supermarket Context, which will be featured in the New England Law Review, Volume 48, Book 4. The article examines Sheehan v. Roche Brothers Supermarkets, Inc., where the SJC recognized the need for a new rule appreciating “self-service” developments in many supermarkets, which gave customers more freedom to handle the merchandise. This “mode of operation” approach eliminates the standard slip-and-fall rule which requires the injured plaintiff to prove that the premises owner had notice of the risk that caused the injury if the defendant’s mode of operation creates a foreseeable risk that a dangerous condition will occur. After Sheehan, the lower courts have reached different conclusions about whether or not this rule, one that has effectively attached liability to premises owners who would otherwise escape liability by demonstrating a lack of actual notice, applies only in the self-service context.
Today, we are joined by Louisa Gibbs, the New England Law Review’s former Executive Online Editor and a recent graduate of New England Law | Boston, to discuss her Comment entitled “EEOC v. Boh Brothers Construction Co.: Expanding Same-Sex Sexual Harassment Jurisprudence Beyond Sexual Desire,” which will be published in Volume 48, Book 4. Her Comment discusses the Fifth Circuit’s EEOC v. Boh Brothers Construction Co. decision, in which the court found the evidence sufficient to establish Title VII same-sex sexual harassment based on sex stereotyping. She argues that although the Fifth Circuit was ultimately correct, the Court was incorrect in failing to utilize its sister circuits’ views in the decision and, instead, simply focusing on the evidence. She argues that the Fifth Circuit’s analysis would have been much stronger had it addressed or even acknowledged that the Sixth and Ninth Circuits have strong arguments supporting and opposing same-sex sexual harassment. In its shortcomings, the Fifth Circuit therefore failed to provide adequate judicial protections for men subject to same-sex sexual harassment.
Listen on our website here, or visit our PodOmatic page here.
You can also subscribe to our RSS feed here, or download on iTunes here.
Every social disease spawns its cultural cure. Hate Crimes in Cyberspace is the antidote, bred from the explosion of online personal attacks, a societal ailment seeping into the online and offline fabric of our communities, targeting women and members of other historically subjugated groups. This book sirens to the world that digital hate is an epidemic that costs us all, some far more than others. It cries for a free and equal Internet, where we can all engage without obstruction in the revolutionary new opportunities provided through the Internet—communication, innovation, commerce, recreation, and occupation.
As you will see, this is going to be one sugarplum tree of a review. However, the sugarplums will be vibrating and fizzing, overrun with creeping maggots and rot. That is because Professor Danielle Keats Citron, Esq., penned a superb book about foul things, and we cannot talk about the book without discussing what festers on its branches.
Read more from the most recent On Remand article, a book review of Professor Danielle Keats Citron, Esq.’s Hate Crimes in Cyberspace by Carrie Goldberg, Esq. here.
Bruce D. Sunstein, author of How Prometheus Has Upended Patent Eligiblity: An Anatomy of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, to be published in Volume 49, Book 1 of the New England Law Review, is Founder and Partner at Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP. He has a B.S. in Humanities (Applied Mathematics and Literature) from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an M.A. in English from Indiana University, and earned his J.D. from Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley in 1973. Impressively, he was selected for Best Lawyers in America 2013–2014 and The Best Lawyers in America 2015 in the field of Litigation–Intellectual Property. He was also named by Boston magazine as one of the five best intellectual property lawyers.
Bruce Sunstein focuses his practice on intellectual property rights, particularly patents, as well as business representation, serving as an expert witness, and various engagements as an arbitrator. He was admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office in 1974, and since then has obtained a wide range of patents for his clients, ranging from financial trading systems to neuromedical measurement devices. Intellectual property disputes contribute to Bruce D. Sunstein’s expertise as a witness and arbitrator, and he is expected to give patent law expert testimony in antitrust litigation in In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation, scheduled for trial in October 2014. He has also served as an intellectual property law expert in a dispute over Massachusetts’ corporate excise tax liability, which settled during trial.