Race-Based Peremptory Challenges: An Empirical Analysis of Litigation from the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2002–2006

This paper examines race-based peremptory challenges. Such challenges occur during the voir dire jury selection process. The process allows both the defense and the prosecution to strike jurors who they believe will not decide cases fairly. However, in the case of Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the Supreme Court ruled that race could not be used as a factor in eliminating prospective jurors. This paper examines federal litigation for five years in which it was alleged that race was used as a factor in removing a juror. An examination of the cases revealed that most of the cases involved sole male litigants who allege that there were multiple race-based peremptory challenges used in their cases. Moreover, most of the cases that led to the allegations involved violent offenses. Other case characteristics are noted, but of most significance was the finding that most appellants lost their cases. As such, the courts felt that most of the challenges were, in fact, race neutral. The implications of this research are discussed. This study was funded by an undergraduate research grant from Penn State University.     

WHAT MAKES A FAMILY?

This note analyzes the issue of gay and lesbian adoption. Although such adoptions are becoming more accepted in the United States, there remain a few states—Florida, Mississippi, and Utah—that have banned gay and lesbian adoptions. This note will propose new legislative language for adoption laws in conservative states.     

The Enjoyment of Rights and Freedoms: A New Conception of the 'Ambit' under Article 14 ECHR

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as applied by the UK judiciary under the Human Rights Act 1998, is in danger of becoming as 'parasitic' as it is often described. Judges have inappropriately narrowed the scope of the 'ambit' of other Convention articles, and thus limited the number of claims to which Article 14 can apply, by defining it according to considerations more properly weighed in a justification analysis incorporating proportionality. The emerging approach departs from Strasbourg jurisprudence, and fails to give full effect to the language and intent of Article 14. This trend need not continue. This article begins the process of fashioning a new conception of the ambit of Convention articles: one that could change the fortunes of Article 14 cases in the UK, but that flows naturally from the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights, and gives effect to the spirit of the HRA.     

What does it mean to suffer loss? Haxton v Philips Electronics

In Haxton v Philips Electronics the Court of Appeal considered whether a widow could recover the diminution in value of her dependency claim following the defendant's tortious reduction of her life expectancy. The note outlines the development of the common law, demonstrating that Haxton is novel but not unorthodox, and tests whether Haxton's principles can provide a sound foundation for future cases. Positing three hypothetical scenarios, it argues that the disparity in outcome, rather than indicating a lack of unifying principle, as was suggested in Jobling v Associated Dairies, may be explained by combining Austin's division between primary and secondary rights with Gardner and Stevens' contributions as to how they are protected. Restitutio in integrum requires consideration of the reasons and values underlying the right in question and these are discernible in the jurisprudence. The note also considers whether Haxton could have been decided on the basis that a defendant should not profit from its own wrongdoing.     

What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too: Converging U.S. intellectual property exhaustion doctrines

With the increasing dispersion of intellectual property comes the intellectual property rights owner's continued desire to retain that part of the equation for which the bargain was struck. In terms of patents, the patentee strikes a deal to disclose the invention to the public in exchange for a monopoly over its use for a limited term. Copyright holders contribute their works to the intellectual pool receiving value by sale, lease or license. In 2012–13, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with delineating the realms of two intellectual property exhaustion doctrines and answering the question of where to draw the line with regard to an IP owner's ability to control the protected invention or work via patent or copyright, respectively. In one case, the Court permitted the intellectual property owner to restrict a subsequent purchaser's use of the product subject to protection, while in the other case the Court rejected the intellectual property owner's attempt to control the downstream use or resale of the product. This article discusses the relevant intellectual property exhaustion doctrines, analyzes and reconciles the Court's decisions in these cases, and provides guidance for navigating restrictions on use of U.S. protected products and works around the globe.     

观往知来：美国第四修正案非法证据排除规则的新发展对中国的启示

美国联邦宪法第四修正案的证据排除规则是一项饱受争议的排除规则,曾经历过从严格适用到不断受限的发展过程,赫灵案的判决进一步削弱了该规则的基础。在未来,对该规则进行限制在相当长的时期内仍是一种主流趋势,其例外规则的适用范围将进一步得到扩张,而该规则本身的适用范围也将被进一步缩小。中国目前初步建立起了非法证据排除规则．在具体...     

(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.     

The Elective and Automatic Theories of Termination in the Common Law of the Contract of Employment: Conundrum Resolved?

If a party to an employment contract commits a repudiatory dismissal or resignation, it has long been unclear whether the other party has the option either to terminate or affirm the contract (the elective theory) or whether the former's breach operates to bring the contract of employment to an end (the automatic theory). The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Société Générale (London Branch) v Geys has finally resolved this question. By a majority, the Supreme Court held that the elective theory also applies in the context of a wrongful repudiation of the employment contract by express dismissal or resignation. This note examines the significance of Geys in the context of the common law of the contract of employment and evaluates whether a number of related issues surrounding the breach and termination of the employment contract have been resolved.