The fourth amendment and aerial surveillance: Searching for guidelines

Advances in technology have given law enforcement agencies additional capabilities when performing surveillance activities. One area in particular—aerial surveillance—especially demonstrates the possible intrusiveness of police investigatory activity.

One of the most important considerations in the area of aerial surveillance is striking a balance between the necessity of police activities and protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Cases relating to aerial surveillance have sought to develop guidelines for police agencies in this expanding area of search and seizure inquiry.     

U.S. v. Glatfelter and NCR Co. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co.: Seventh Circuit's Latest Interpretation of CERCLA Liabilities

Although a crucial part of the federal government's legal arsenal against polluters in environmental enforcement actions, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is nevertheless an ambiguously and confusingly drafted statute requiring constant judicial interpretations of its application in litigation. Last year, several decisions delivered by the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit have provided the latest interpretations, particularly further distinguishing between sections 107 and 113 claims, as well as clarifying apportionment and allocation of liabilities. This article discusses these decisions and tries to analyze their impact on future CERCLA litigations.     

美国德尔蒙特公司诉冯克案探析

一、引 言 不可避免披露原则(the In-evitable Disclosure Doctrine)是美国法院为保护商业秘密不被潜在披露(threatende Misap-propriation)侵害而逐步创立的禁令救济原则,用于禁止雇员在其专业领域内为前雇主的竞争者工作。在这类案件中,被告大都是掌握原告重要商业秘密的前雇员,离职后准备或已经就职于原告的竞争对手,其新的工作将使其不可避免地依靠或者利用原告的商业秘密,因此原告请求法院发布禁令,禁止被告从     

Measuring U.S. innovative activity: business data at the U.S. Census Bureau

Innovation is seen as a source of strength and vitality in the U.S. economy. Better measures of innovative activity—including but not limited to innovation alone—could improve what we know about the sources of productivity and economic growth. The U.S. Census Bureau collects data on some measures of innovative activity that research shows affect economic performance. But understanding how the effects work requires more than just measures of innovative activity. It also requires solid statistical information about core measures of the economy so we can rule out the possibility that a measure of innovative activity merely proxies for something omitted from or measured poorly in the core data. Gaps in core measures can be filled by better integrating existing data and by more structured collections of new data. Versions of this paper were presented at the NSF/SRS Workshop, Advancing Measures of Innovation: Knowledge Flows, Business Metrics, and Measurement Strategies, Arlington VA, June 6–7, 2006, and circulated to the Advisory Committee on Measuring Innovation in the 21st Century Economy, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. This paper is unofficial and thus has not undergone the review accorded to official Census Bureau publications. Lucia Foster, Ron Jarmin, Jeffrey Mayer, Thomas Mesenbourg, and Daniel Weinberg, and the editors made valuable comments. However, the views expressed in the paper are those of the author and not necessarily those of the U.S. Census Bureau.     

U.S. Industries v. Director: "claim" versus "condition" in the analysis of workers' compensation cases

Under most workers' compensation statutes, an injury must "arise out of " and "in the course of" employment in order to qualify as a compensable disability. In U.S. Industries v. Director, the Supreme Court held that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act must be strictly construed to avoid transforming the compensation system into a form of social insurance. In U.S. Industries, the Court denied a disability claim based on an arthritic condition which was manifested while the worker was at home in bed. This Note contends that the Supreme Court neglected to consider pertinent medical realities when analyzing the causation question. Thus, the decision undermines the overall rationale behind workers' compensation legislation. Nonetheless, the Note argues that the case does not relax the requirement of adequately scrutinizing the causative elements underlying any reasonable claim for disability benefits. An analysis adequately accommodating both medical and legal facts, instead of relying upon the vagaries of statutory interpretation, is necessary to improve the efficiency and fairness of workers' compensation disability determinations.     

Women in the U.S. Armed Services:

No abstract available for this article.