Umbrella Coverage Is Available: Don't Get Soaked—Coverage for Environmental Liabilities in the Wake of California's Powerine Cases 1 and 2

California case law demonstrates the value of umbrella insurance coverage when policyholders are confronted with environmental liabilities imposed administratively by environmental authorities. California law holds that certain general-liability umbrella coverage language is broad enough to cover environmental claims arising solely or partly out of administrative requirements which claims generally are not otherwise covered by primary insurance. See, e.g., Powerine Oil Co., Inc. v. Superior Ct., 37 Cal. 4th 377, 398–99 (2005); Lockheed v. Continental Inc. Co., 134 Cal. App. 4th 187 (2005); Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 82 Cal.App. 4th 592, 605–6 (2000). Regrettably, however, excess/umbrella insurance companies may seek to conflate umbrella first-dollar and excess coverage obligations when faced with claims in seeking to delay or avoid payment.     

Enforcing Desegregation: A Case Study of Federal District Court Power and Social Change in Macon County Alabama

This case study of Lee v. Macon County Board of Education demonstrates that a federal district court in Alabama, enforcing Brown v. Board of Education, brought about significant social change despite constraints on the courts. The court's application of Brown played a decisive role in ending the racial caste system in this Alabama Black Belt county. The court, by adding the U.S. Department of Justice as a party, overcame constraints that had precluded the executive branch from pursuing school desegregation. Change came through the courts before Congress legislated against school segregation. Seekers of social change must evaluate the constraints on the courts relative to the constraints on the other branches and levels of government.     

Special report on medical staff relationships. Handling "impaired" health care professionals

Applying the doctrine of corporate negligence, courts will, in appropriate circumstances, deem hospitals and other institutional health care providers responsible for the quality of patient care in their institutions and for the consequences of negligent physician performance that could have been discovered and prevented. See, e.g., Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hosp., 33 Ill. 2d 326 (1965), cert, denied, 383 U.S. 946 (1966); Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hosp., 99 Wis. 2d 709 (1981); Elam v. College Park Hosp., 132 Cal. App. 3d 332 (1982). In such a climate, and with Data Bank reporting now a reality, neither institutional providers nor health care professionals on their medical staffs can afford to ignore problems of practitioner impairment. Recognizing this reality, some state laws now mandate an organized approach--such as the establishment of an impaired practitioners committee--to problems of professional impairment. However, whether state-mandated or not, providers must have policies and procedures in place to insure not only that impaired professionals are referred to available treatment programs, but that they fully participate in and complete such programs, and achieve rehabilitation, before they return to practice at the institution. The earlier detection and treatment are initiated, preferably before peer review action becomes necessary, the better for patients, institutions, and practitioners themselves.     

Caution in the Classroom: K-12 Teacher In-Class Speech,The Federal Courts and Garcetti

The federal courts’ approach to regulating K-12 public school teacher speech in the classroom has been split during the past twenty years. Some circuit courts use Pickering v. Board of Education, in which speech is examined to see if it touches on a matter of public concern. Others prefer Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, which focuses on whether speech is school-sponsored and whether the school had a legitimate reason for restricting it. In 2007, Garcetti v. Ceballos offered a new perspective on public employee speech. In that case, speech was examined to determine whether it was related to an employee's professional duties. An examination of federal court treatment of in-class teacher speech before and after Garcetti shows the case has further complicated the issue because it is being embraced by some federal courts as an appropriate precedent when dealing with classroom speech.     

Preemption of local smoke-free air ordinances: the implications of judicial opinions for meeting national health objectives.

Elimination of state laws that preempt local antismoking ordinances is a national health objective. However, the tobacco industry and its supporters have continued to pursue state-level preemption of local tobacco control ordinances as part of an apparent strategy to avoid the diffusion of grassroots antismoking initiatives. And, an increasing number of challenges to local ordinances by the tobacco industry and persons supported by the tobacco industry are being decided in state supreme courts and courts of appeals. The outcomes of seemingly similar cases about the validity of local smoke-free air ordinances vary significantly by state. This paper examines the common and unique aspects of the decisions and the potential implications of court rulings on preemption for future state tobacco control efforts and achievement of national health objectives around the elimination of preemption. Using a search strategy developed for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's State Tobacco Activities Tracking and Evaluation (STATE) System, cases where a state or federal appellate level court made a finding on the validity of a local smoke-free air ordinance or regulation were identified in 19 states. In contrast to previous studies, we found that cases in approximately half of states were decided for local governments. We also found that across the states, courts were considering similar factors in their decisions including the extent to which: (1) the local government possessed the authority to pass the ordinance, (2) the ordinance conflicted with the state constitution, and (3) state statutes preempt the ordinance.     

Lessons Learned from Developing a Trauma Consultation Protocol for Juvenile and Family Courts

Juvenile and family courts hold a unique position among the many stakeholders that comprise a healing community for persons experiencing adversity or trauma. Specifically, judges and other court leaders can promote the implementation of screening for trauma, the alignment of appropriate and effective treatment for trauma when indicated, and the accountability of systems for coordination and support of such services. To that end, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges undertook a field‐based project — consisting of multiple semi‐structured court surveys — to elucidate the key features of a trauma‐informed court and how to assist courts in becoming more trauma‐responsive for both consumers and staff. With the assistance of courts in 11 pilot sites across the nation, the project has led to the development of a protocol called trauma consultation or trauma audit, which is outlined here. Our work in developing the consultation protocol highlighted the need to better understand (1) the prevalence and impact of secondary traumatic stress in court staff, (2) the potential for environment to contribute to traumatic stress reactions, and (3) the importance of consistent trauma screenings and subsequent use of findings. Practical suggestions for courts to become more trauma‐informed are also provided.     

Crawford v. Washington One Year Later: Its Practical Effects in Child Abuse and Domestic Violence Cases

A year after the United States Supreme Court decided Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the maelstrom that many legal scholars anticipated has failed to materialize. Crawford's abrogation of Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), and its articulation of the new standard for determining when the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause applies to out‐of‐court statements, has had less effect than some predicted, regarding which statements are admissible and which are excluded. This article explores Crawford's practical effect as courts around the country have applied it, particularly in the context of child abuse and domestic violence cases.     

越南民商事管辖权制度探析

越南国会是越南最高权力机关和立法机关.越南法院分为三级:最高人民法院、地方人民法院和地区人民法院.对于"商事纠纷"的含义,在一些重要方面越南的规则与国际标准不同.<经济纠纷法>列举了经济法庭有权裁决的争议类型.包含"涉外因素"的经济案件,由越南经济法庭审理.地方(区)人民法院行使管辖权的依据是被告营业地或住所在法院管辖区内.管辖权的排除主要表现在以下方面:外交豁免与领事豁免、外国土地和管辖权选择协议.未决诉讼案件原则和不方便法院原则并没有得到越南法学家们的广泛承认.管辖权冲突问题由越南最高人民法院解决.     

Tarasoff in Missouri: The jurisprudence of a mental health provider's duty to warn and protect non-patients of potential risks from patients

In 1976, the Supreme Court of California issued its well-known Tarasoff Principle. From this principle, other courts found a duty to warn, and some found more than just a duty to warn, a duty to protect. As courts in other states adopted a version of the Tarasoff Principle, they issued a wide variety of third-party liability rules. In light of the dynamic, everchanging Tarasoff jurisprudence in the United States and recent relevant appellate court opinion in Missouri, a timely updated summary and update of Tarasoff-related jurisprudence in Missouri is warranted. In the present analysis, we compiled the four appellate court decisions that pertained to the questions of Tarasoff-like third-party liability in the State of Missouri: Sherrill v. Wilson (1983), Matt v. Burrell (1995), Bradley v. Ray (1995), and Virgin v. Hopewell (2001). We reviewed all legal measures for clinicians to protect nonpatients in Missouri, not just those that relate to protecting nonpatients from violence as in a Tarasof-like scenario. Thus, this paper concisely provides a compendium of such options and allows for a meaningful comparison of which legal, protective measures are mandatory and which are permissive, thereby evoking the question of whether measures of protecting nonpatients from a patient's violent acts ought to be mandatory duties or permissive application of professional judgment.     

Stone v. Powell: The impact on state appellate court judges' perceptions

This study addresses the question of whether the United States Supreme Court decision of Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), has had a significant impact on the highest level state appellate courts. The study centered around a survey sent to every member of the highest appellate court hearing criminal appeals in each of the fifty states. The major finding of the research was that Stone v. Powell can be viewed along two dimensions: a narrow, substantive dimension applying the case as a Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule decision, or a broader, policy dimension of judicial federalism. It appears that, for the most part, state supreme courts have chosen to apply Stone v. Powell along the narrow, substantive dimension. Thus, state supreme courts have not assumed the position of equal partners with the federal courts in assuring adequate and appropriate disposition of federal claims.     

(Non‐)Enforcement of Directors’ Duties in Corporate Groups: Goh Chan Peng v Beyonics Technology Ltd

Corporate groups, a ubiquitous feature of modern business, pose formidable challenges for common law courts relying on traditional corporate law doctrine. Arising out of a corporate group's recent bid to recover millions of dollars in lost profits from a former director and CEO who had diverted a core business, Goh Chan Peng v Beyonics Technology Ltd raised thorny issues of separate legal entity doctrine, single economic unit theory, and reflective loss shared by common law legal systems. Despite finding that the defendant had breached his duties to the ultimate holding company, the Singapore Court of Appeal absolved the faithless director from most of his liabilities, relying on limited domestic precedent to the exclusion of a rich body of Commonwealth jurisprudence – including the House of Lords’ landmark Johnson v Gore Wood decision. This note explores the paths not taken by the court, and highlights the pitfalls of a narrow, autochthonous approach to problems of common law doctrine.     

Litigant Status and Trial Court Appeal Mobilization

The advantages held by haves over have nots in litigation have long fascinated scholars, with a long line of research revealing that litigant status often affects litigant resources, experience, and chances of overall success from trial courts to appellate courts. What has received considerably less attention, however, is how this status affects the decision to appeal. Bringing a new perspective to this important area holding implications for the shape and content of the judicial hierarchy, this study analyzes the decision of the losing federal district court litigant to appeal to the US courts of appeals. Utilizing an original database containing a sample of federal district court civil cases decided between 2000 and 2004, the results indicate, as predicted, that litigant status differentials affect whether there will be an appeal. This influence is further magnified when conditioned upon the relative costs of the appeal. These findings provide one of the first detailed examinations of litigant status and appeals coming from US trial courts and, simultaneously, offer the first empirical evidence to date that business litigants, like previously known government parties, are advantaged over individuals when deciding whether to appeal.     

Preserving the Law’s Coherence: Citizens United v. FEC and Stare Decisis

In addition to striking down the portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that limited the amount of money corporations and unions could spend on independent expenditures, Citizens United v. FEC overturned two decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, an action that stands in contrast to the principle of stare decisis. This article analyzes the discussions of stare decisis in the various Citizens United opinions and compares these discussions to existing scholarly debate on the proper role of stare decisis in constitutional law. It also examines citations and discussions of Citizens United in state supreme court and federal circuit court of appeals cases to analyze how the justices’ discussions of stare decisis in Citizens United have influenced lower courts. The article concludes that the Citizens United opinions that discussed stare decisis — particularly Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion and Chief Justice John Roberts’ concurrence — are highly problematic for a number of reasons. The applications of stare decisis in the opinions were also flawed. Citizens United has thus made it even easier for lower courts to abandon stare decisis and overturn precedent.     

Precedent, Parity, and Racial Discrimination: A Federal/State Comparison of the Impact of Brown v. Board of Education

Questions regarding Brown v. Board of Education 's short-term effect remain unanswered, particularly its comparative impact on federal district courts and state supreme courts. We test this through an analysis of racial discrimination cases in those venues in the twenty-year period bifurcated by the decision in May 1954. Our findings suggest that while federal district courts and state courts were similarly unresponsive to discrimination claims before that date, Brown exerted a significant impact on district court decisions but had little influence at the state level. Furthermore, a third pattern was found in federal appellate courts, where discrimination claims had a high likelihood of pro-minority decisions even before the Supreme Court directive.     

A Phenomenological and Grounded Theory Study of Women’s Experiences in Drug Court: Informing Practice Through a Gendered Lens

Drug courts have been a growing part of the criminal justice system since 1989. This qualitative study adds to the existing literature by developing an in-depth understanding of drug court from a woman’s (N?=?25) perspective. Phenomenology and grounded theory guided the data collection and analysis, resulting in three themes. First, the women found the drug court team to be compassionate and empathetic, which they reported supported them in being successful in the program. Second, the majority of women reported histories of trauma and felt that the drug court could be improved by offering them more resources to treat their trauma. Third, the majority of women reported being single mothers and they shared examples of how being a single parent was a challenge to being successful in the drug court. Implications for drug court practice are discussed.     

R. (Martin) v Mahony: the History of a Classical Certiorari Authority

R. (Martin) v Mahony, a decision of the Irish High Court of 1910, continues to be acknowledged by modern textbook writers as a leading authority for the classical rule that certiorari could not correct error of law. This rule, which considerably reduced judicial superintendence of magistrates' courts, had been established by the English court of Queen's Bench in the 1840s. However, the rule was repudiated by the Exchequer Division in Ireland in the late 1880s, which developed a novel, liberal theory of certiorari. This doctrinal innovation, which was used in overturning convictions under the anti-boycotting statute, the Criminal Law and Procedure Act 1887, appalled sections of Lord Salisbury's government, was disapproved of by the English courts, and split the Irish judiciary. The division caused by the doctrine persisted until 1910 when the Irish High Court, having assembled in banc in Martin's Case in order to resolve the impasse, re-established orthodox English doctrine.     

Sex Matters

Abstract

Male and female inmates have different profiles and needs, and adapt to prison in different ways. When policy is made and implemented, however, the male model of imprisonment sets the standard. This article argues that courts and prison administrators should consider the differences between men and women in prison, particularly in the context of cross-gender searches, which brings those differences to the fore. The case of Jordan v. Gardner, in which the court recognized women inmates' specific histories of abuse in evaluating the potential psychological harm of cross-gender searches, is presented as an exemplary use of a gender-specific standard. It is recommended that a gender-specific standard be used by both courts and prison administrators in order to measure more appropriately and accurately the impact of cross-gender searches on women inmates.     

Liability for sexual harassment in criminal justice agencies

This article focuses on sexual harassment in criminal justice agencies from a legal perspective. The article briefly describes sexual harassment cases that address agency liability decided by the United States Supreme Court, discussing the standards of liability articulated in Burlington Industries Inc. v. Ellerth (1998), Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998), and Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986). A more precise understanding of when agencies are liable for the actions of their subordinates is developed through an examination of lower federal court decisions. Trends in the law are identified, as case law is categorized according to harassment by supervisors and co-workers. The article concludes by exploring the policy implications flowing from court decisions and by calling for further research on this troubling aspect of the criminal justice workplace.     

Economics of court performance: an empirical analysis

This paper proposes an empirical analysis of Spanish court performance using the economic approach. An econometric model will be estimated in order to answer two basic questions: (1) why some courts’ output it is greater than others? (2) Could courts produce a higher output using their actual resources? In addition it will be determine, by means of an analysis of variance (ANOVA), whether courts showing higher than average output have dictated resolutions with a higher reversal rate.     

On the Choice of Remedies

At a time when misuse of the power to zone seems to be increasing—some say rampant—when such misuse is frequently ignored even sanctioned by the courts, e.g.; Belle Terre v. Boraas, Steelhill v. Sanbornton, U.S. v. Black Jack (lower federal court), it is heartening to find a powerful court unite behind an articulate and powerfully worded opinion which strikes down an exercise of the police power (zoning) which legislates local biases and unreasonably excludes low income housing. There is an appropriateness too in that it is Justice Hall, some 12 years after his classic dissent in the Vickers case, who rationalizes a long line of often misunderstood New Jersey cases and the case law of other jurisdictions and concludes: “that every … municipality must, by its land use regulations, … make realistically possible an appropriate variety and choice of housing.” A strong concurring opinion further notes; “the use of the zoning power by municipalities to maintain themselves as enclaves of affluence or of social homogeneity … [is] improper and to be strongly condemned.”